Discussion:
Vermont's Racist Vaccine Policy
Add Reply
BTR1701
2021-04-04 22:22:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.

I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.

-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.

On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.

That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.

Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.

All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.

Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.

The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.

"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.

It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.

"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.

All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.

In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.

The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.

https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
RichA
2021-04-04 22:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
Still think it's ironic that the people last to get the vaccines are the ones who created, arranged for their
distribution, mostly white males (and some Asian) between 20 and 49. Meanwhile, blacks scream about discrimination
impacting their medical care, but they don't like needles so they avoid the vaccine.
moviePig
2021-04-05 02:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
Still think it's ironic that the people last to get the vaccines are the ones who created, arranged for their
distribution, mostly white males (and some Asian) between 20 and 49. Meanwhile, blacks scream about discrimination
impacting their medical care, but they don't like needles so they avoid the vaccine.
Could you cite some evidence that "they don't like needles"?
trotsky
2021-04-05 11:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
Still think it's ironic that the people last to get the vaccines are the ones who created, arranged for their
distribution, mostly white males (and some Asian) between 20 and 49. Meanwhile, blacks scream about discrimination
impacting their medical care, but they don't like needles so they avoid the vaccine.
Who represents the anonyshits?
FPP
2021-04-05 11:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-05 13:04:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.

2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional and
illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.

So well done, there, chief. Not exactly the triumphant Usenet win you were
figuring on, huh?
FPP
2021-04-05 21:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-05 21:41:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
moviePig
2021-04-05 22:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
BTR1701
2021-04-05 22:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke' award?
Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this "no whites
allowed" vaccination program.

Regardless, this is just another FPP load of excrement. He concocts these
'rules', where you're not supposed to complain about, or even comment on,
anything that goes on anywhere you don't live, then does exactly what he
claims others aren't supposed to do.

FPP's "Manual of Usenet Conduct" guidebook comes with a huge disclaimer right
on the front page that says, "All of the following rules and codes of conduct
apply to everyone except FPP."
FPP
2021-04-06 08:34:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke' award?
Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this "no whites
allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 19:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.

You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
FPP
2021-04-06 21:18:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did. Not surprised you offer no proof of what you shit
out of your pie-hole.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 21:56:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at
all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you dee
to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
FPP
2021-04-06 22:08:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at
all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you deem
to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
You posted it, and you cried about it.

You were getting a teeny-tiny taste of what racism must taste like, and
you didn't like it.

Pretty simple if you're paying attention.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 22:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at
all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you deem
to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been talking
about me.
FPP
2021-04-06 22:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at
all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke'
award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this
"no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you deem
to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been talking
about me.
Yup, as I predicted. You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted
about it here.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 02:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less
blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you
deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
FPP
2021-04-07 11:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less
blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you
deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up... obviously it mattered, or why else post about it?

You don't want to talk about Vermont?
Don't bring it into the conversation.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 18:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less
blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you
deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up...
Okay. How does that mean Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine?
FPP
2021-04-07 21:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a less
blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who you
deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up...
Okay. How does that mean Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine?
Not Vermont. Me.

By showing you whining about something that minorities have been dealing
with for 400 years.

But let Thanny experience 10 minutes of similar treatment, and he bawls
like a 2nd grader who's skinned his knee.

Big man, even bigger whine.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-08 02:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a
less blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination
program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who
you deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own
medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up...
Okay. How does that mean Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine?
Not Vermont. Me.
Neither of you.
By showing you whining about something that minorities have been dealing
with for 400 years.
So commenting on a news article is the equivalent to slavery and Jim
Crow now?

That sure is some massive white privilege you've got there, you fucking
racist.
But let Thanny experience 10 minutes of similar treatment
I literally did not experience any treatment from the state of Vermont.

You've been lying about this for days now.
FPP
2021-04-08 07:00:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a
less blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination
program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who
you deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own
medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up...
Okay. How does that mean Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine?
Not Vermont. Me.
Neither of you.
By showing you whining about something that minorities have been dealing
with for 400 years.
So commenting on a news article is the equivalent to slavery and Jim
Crow now?
Is it? You tell me... you're the only one saying it.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
FPP
2021-04-08 07:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
On Apr 5, 2021 at 3:12:19 PM PDT, "moviePig"
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?
Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this
coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You
don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe
because Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be
emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care
policies are likely to be emulated as other politicians compete
for the 'most woke' award? Emperor Newsom is already trying a
less blatant version of this "no whites allowed" vaccination
program.
Nope. Not worried about that in the least.
Of course you're not. You've already made it clear that you have no
problem with the state denying health treatment in a racially
discriminatory manner so long as the 'correct' people are being
discriminated against.
You're all-in on neo-racism. No confusion there.
Which I never did.
Sure you did. You literally said you like to see it, so long as who
you deem to be the 'correct' people get a 'taste of their own
medicine'.
Nope, I never did. You saying it won't make it true. I was referring
to YOU, klown.
Except I don't live in Vermont and you know it, so you can't have been
talking about me.
You don't have to live in Vermont... you posted about it here.
And that means Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine exactly
how?
You brought it up...
Okay. How does that mean Vermont is giving me a taste of racism medicine?
Not Vermont. Me.
Neither of you.
By showing you whining about something that minorities have been dealing
with for 400 years.
So commenting on a news article is the equivalent to slavery and Jim
Crow now?
That sure is some massive white privilege you've got there, you fucking
racist.
But let Thanny experience 10 minutes of similar treatment
I literally did not experience any treatment from the state of Vermont.
You've been lying about this for days now.
Nope, but you're experiencing it right now, judging by how fast your fat
ass is moving...
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
FPP
2021-04-06 08:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do you bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke' award?
Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this "no whites
allowed" vaccination program.
Regardless, this is just another FPP load of excrement. He concocts these
'rules', where you're not supposed to complain about, or even comment on,
anything that goes on anywhere you don't live, then does exactly what he
claims others aren't supposed to do.
FPP's "Manual of Usenet Conduct" guidebook comes with a huge disclaimer right
on the front page that says, "All of the following rules and codes of conduct
apply to everyone except FPP."
Yeah, calling you out is a new 'rule' of mine. Sure.
You can show examples of that, right?

How about another random unsourced dropbox image?
You can get it up for that, right?
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
trotsky
2021-04-06 13:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state? Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Maybe because Vermont's racially discriminatory health care policies are
likely to be emulated as other politicians compete for the 'most woke' award?
Emperor Newsom is already trying a less blatant version of this "no whites
allowed" vaccination program.
Regardless, this is just another FPP load of excrement. He concocts these
'rules', where you're not supposed to complain about, or even comment on,
anything that goes on anywhere you don't live, then does exactly what he
claims others aren't supposed to do.
FPP's "Manual of Usenet Conduct" guidebook comes with a huge disclaimer right
on the front page that says, "All of the following rules and codes of conduct
apply to everyone except FPP."
Was it fashioned after Matt Gaetz, then?
FPP
2021-04-06 08:34:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through
race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?  Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state?  Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
Wow, pig! You don't seriously think Georgia's vote in the electoral
college, or their representation in the House and Senate affect YOU, do you?

Unlike, say, a vaccination law.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
trotsky
2021-04-06 13:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through
race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?  Not fun,
is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Umm, because Georgia's recently become a swing state?  Or maybe because
Georgia's voter-suppression tactics are sure to be emulated?...
I think it's more accurate to say Georgia's blue right now. There was
nothing legitimate about Kemp's "election".
FPP
2021-04-06 08:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.

You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
Unlike Vermont's vaccine regulations.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 19:02:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."

Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news. You
don't live in North Carolina and whether they let trannies use the
women's rooms there or not has no effect on you, but you bitched anyway.

Now come up with some more spin on how 'that's different' also, Kathy.
Or just be refreshingly honest and admit you have a double-standard when
it comes to whether your made-up rules apply to yourself the same way
you apply them to others.
FPP
2021-04-06 21:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.

They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.

Stop acting stupid, as if Georgia doesn't affect anybody outside of
Georgia. Even YOU'RE not THAT stupid.

(Which is saying a lot...)
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 21:57:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like Nort
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news. You don'
live in North Carolina and whether they let trannies use the women's room
there or not has no effect on you, but you bitched anyway.

Now come up with some more spin on how 'that's different' also, Kathy. Or jus
be refreshingly honest and admit you have a double-standard when it comes t
whether your made-up rules apply to yourself the same way you apply them t
others.
FPP
2021-04-06 22:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 03:48:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure
do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule'
I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...



From: BTR1701 <***@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He just
used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a convenient
excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told her
feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident took
place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?

Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.


From: BTR1701 <***@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:05:09 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
FPP
Post by BTR1701
Ed Stasiak
It's you Lefties who opened this can of worms, when Obama
declared that gender magically no longer exists and anybody
can go anywhere depending on how they "identify" at that
particular moment.
Obama didn't come out with his declaration out of the blue.
Neither did the "lefties". It was in response to a Republican
administration passing a clearly unconstitutional law in order
to placate their base, who had their asses handed to them by
SCOTUS.
Absolute nonsense, the militant LGBT movement has been pushing
for this for years and North Carolina took the bait, _reacting_
to the pressure from the Left and allowing Obama to ban gender.
I now regret voting for the gay marriage proposal here in Michigan
several years back, as everything the anti-gay marriage types were
claiming would happen, is now happening.
And soon we're going to have those who are into beastiality,
necrophilia, pedophilla, etc. also claiming that these behaviors
are "normal" and society should accede to their demands.
"Age is just a number!"
You are beyond hope, Ed.
I remember when MY marriage was supposed to become worthless after same
sex marriage became legal. Funny... but absolutely nothing in my life
changed in the smallest way, since.
I guess we live in different countries...
LGBT people have been using the same bathroom we use for decades, Ed.
But battered women's shelters and girls sports teams haven't been forced
to accept men pretending to be women until you progs forced it onto
everyone just recently.
FPP
2021-04-07 11:46:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure
do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule'
I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He just
used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a convenient
excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told her
feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident took
place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?
Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.
No shit.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 18:06:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure
do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule'
I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He
just used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a
convenient excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told her
feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident took
place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?
Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.
No shit.
Yep, no shit you turn out to be the liar here.
FPP
2021-04-07 21:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure
do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule'
I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He
just used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a
convenient excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told her
feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident took
place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?
Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.
No shit.
Yep, no shit you turn out to be the liar here.
Sure. You sure proved that by not posting anything relevant.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-08 02:48:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections
sure do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet
'rule' I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate
in January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like
North Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in
the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He
just used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a
convenient excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told
her feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident
took place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?
Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.
No shit.
Yep, no shit you turn out to be the liar here.
Sure. You sure proved that by not posting anything relevant.
It was relevant to both your demand that I prove you commented on the
laws in a state in which you don't live and your claim that you only
comment on laws in states where you do not live when they can affect the
electoral college.

Those posts proved that to be yet another FPP lie.

FPP: Where did I comment on North Carolina's bathroom law?

ME: <quotes several posts where FPP did just that>

FPP: Not relevant! Not relevant!

And you really wonder why I rarely ever play your stupid "cite" game?
Even when I provide *exactly* what you demand, you always say it doesn't
'count' for some made up reason or you start gaslighting by saying it
doesn't say or prove what it clearly does to anyone with the IQ of a
tardigrade.
FPP
2021-04-08 07:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in
Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections
sure do affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet
'rule' I made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate
in January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like
North Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in
the news.
Where did I do that? Where, liar?
Here's just a sampling...
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Left Wing Transgender Insanity
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:50:41 -0700
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
This clown was nothing more than a garden variety pervert. He
just used the big conflagration surrounding transgenders as a
convenient excuse when he got caught.
Got caught? He was *catered to*, while the real female was told
her feelings are secondary and unimportant.
So the new law is working great on both ends, eh?
What new law? This happened in Texas, not North Carolina.
Since Texas, and many other Red states are considering the same
discriminatory legislation, the point is a valid one.
Or must we confine the discussion to a 15 ft. radius of where the
incident took place, now?
We're discussing the overarching idea, not the specific incident.
You said the "new law is working great" in response to this incident,
dumbshit. That means you're asserting that Texas, where the incident
took place has one of these new laws.
You and logic must really hate each other.
And I'll say it again. The new law is working great!
And I'll ask again: What new law?
The one in North Carolina that's going to bankrupt the state
So the incident in Texas shows that the NC law is working great?
Wow. Don't even know where to start with that one.
No shit.
Yep, no shit you turn out to be the liar here.
Sure. You sure proved that by not posting anything relevant.
It was relevant to both your demand that I prove you commented on the
laws in a state in which you don't live and your claim that you only
comment on laws in states where you do not live when they can affect the
electoral college.
Those posts proved that to be yet another FPP lie.
FPP: Where did I comment on North Carolina's bathroom law?
ME: <quotes several posts where FPP did just that>
FPP: Not relevant! Not relevant!
And you really wonder why I rarely ever play your stupid "cite" game?
Even when I provide *exactly* what you demand, you always say it doesn't
'count' for some made up reason or you start gaslighting by saying it
doesn't say or prove what it clearly does to anyone with the IQ of a
tardigrade.
Again, where did I comment on the Bathroom Law?

Or are you seriously saying that my one sentence ("LGBT people have been
using the same bathroom we use for decades, Ed.") was a comment on the law?

Wow, no wonder you don't work anymore!
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
trotsky
2021-04-07 12:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
No, in my EXACT words. Georgia determined who controlled the Senate in
January, you fuckwit.
They'll help determine who runs it in 2022 and who runs the country in 2024.
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news. You don't
live in North Carolina and whether they let trannies use the women's rooms
there or not has no effect on you, but you bitched anyway.
Now come up with some more spin on how 'that's different' also, Kathy. Or just
be refreshingly honest and admit you have a double-standard when it comes to
whether your made-up rules apply to yourself the same way you apply them to
others.
Will FL be next with a Matt Gaetz trafficking law?
FPP
2021-04-06 21:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Why do bitch about Georgia's voting laws, Mary? You don't live in Georgia.
Georgia is one of the states that affects the congressional and
presidential elections.
You might want to brush up on your civics, since their elections sure do
affect me.
In other words, "It's okay when I do it. This is another Usenet 'rule' I
made up that applies to everyone else but not to me."
Because you've also bitched about other laws in other states, like North
Carolina's bathroom law when that was a big controversy in the news. You
don't live in North Carolina and whether they let trannies use the
women's rooms there or not has no effect on you, but you bitched anyway.
Now come up with some more spin on how 'that's different' also, Kathy.
Or just be refreshingly honest and admit you have a double-standard when
it comes to whether your made-up rules apply to yourself the same way
you apply them to others.
I don't have to 'spin' anything, fuckwit.

North Carolina's bathroom law didn't deliver Chuck Schumer the Senate,
and Biden control of his agenda.

Georgia did.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
trotsky
2021-04-06 13:14:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin?  Not fun, is
it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
Then why are you fucking bitching about it, Sally?
Right wing hate radio tells him it's the think to do.
FPP
2021-04-05 21:06:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional and
illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-05 21:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional and
illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.

Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)

Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
FPP
2021-04-06 08:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional and
illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.

Lurn how to reed.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 19:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
FPP
2021-04-06 21:18:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 21:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
FPP
2021-04-06 22:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your
hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a
COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register
for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine
dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based
on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting
results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply
to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part,
on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and
effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government
start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.

Of course, now we'll go back to how YOU know what I said better than
*I*, the speaker did.

Because the reader always knows what's in the mind of the writer when
they're full of shit. You've tried this lie before - and it won't turn
out any better this time, either.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-06 22:19:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your
hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a
COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register
for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine
dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based
on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting
results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply
to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part,
on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and
effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government
start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is
it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense. How does
me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give me a taste of
racism medicine'?
FPP
2021-04-06 22:23:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your
hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a
COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register
for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine
dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based
on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting
results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply
to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part,
on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and
effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government
start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is
it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense. How does
me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give me a taste of
racism medicine'?
As I predicted. You know more about what I said than I do, because
you're a Secret Agent, I guess.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
FPP
2021-04-06 22:24:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your
hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a
COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register
for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine
dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based
on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting
results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply
to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part,
on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and
effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government
start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely
unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-f
o
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is
it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional
and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial discrimination by the
government, just so long as the 'correct' people are being discriminated
against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever actually had
it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't
tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense. How does
me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give me a taste of
racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it. That must be
YOU, righr?
Because you're 'trained', right Deputy Dawg?
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 02:09:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
FPP
2021-04-07 11:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
Nope. You don't decide what I was referring to, and you don't get to
decide what options anyone has.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-07 18:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by FPP
You don't decide what I was referring to
I do get to point out the basic workings of the language and what it
means when you say certain words.
FPP
2021-04-07 21:48:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and* implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by FPP
You don't decide what I was referring to
I do get to point out the basic workings of the language and what it
means when you say certain words.
Nope. *I* get to decide what I meant, not a functional illiterate.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
BTR1701
2021-04-08 02:39:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as
non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and*
implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own
medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by FPP
You don't decide what I was referring to
I do get to point out the basic workings of the language and what it
means when you say certain words.
Nope. *I* get to decide what I meant
FPP: Only *I* have the authority to decide what words in the English
language mean! Bow before my power!
FPP
2021-04-08 07:00:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on
the color of their skin? Who thinks this is remotely
constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with
this neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to
determine who is actually white and non-white, but then I
noticed that it only says you have to *identify* as
non-white,
so a white person could presumably say they identify as black
and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine
eligibility over the state's white residents, provoking no
small amount of controversy and constitutional concerns.
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not
fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin
at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one
presumes) tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in
unconstitutional and illegal racial discrimination *and*
implied
that you approve of it.
Sorry... but I love to see people get a taste of their own
medicine.
So you approve of illegal and unconstitutional racial
discrimination by the government, just so long as the 'correct'
people are being discriminated against.
Gotcha. No more moral high ground for you. (Not that you ever
actually had it; you just think you did.)
Oh, and once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I
wasn't tasting any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next
cliche will be).
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting
any medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
No, really? I know where you live, so that's redundant.
But YOU did post about it... and that's what I'm referring to.
No, it wasn't what you referred to. That doesn't even make any sense.
How does me posting about something that's not happening to me 'give
me a taste of racism medicine'?
One of us knows what I was thinking of when I wrote it.
And then there's basic English. Either what you wrote didn't refer to me
(and you're lying that it did), or it's nonsensical. Those are your two
options.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by FPP
You don't decide what I was referring to
I do get to point out the basic workings of the language and what it
means when you say certain words.
Nope. *I* get to decide what I meant
FPP: Only *I* have the authority to decide what words in the English
language mean! Bow before my power!
That's another Thanny Lie (tm). That's not even close to what I said.
I get to say what I was talking about.

And I've tried explaining what a dictionary is, but you just can't seem
to grasp the concept.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
trotsky
2021-04-07 12:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Nope. As I said, I approve of clowns getting a taste of their own
medicine, and being called out on their hypocrisy.
So to which clown were you referring then?
Why, you, of course!
Once again, I'll note that I don't live in Vermont, so I wasn't tasting any
medicine here (or coins or whatever the next cliche will be).
If you don't live there why didn't you keep you fat fucking trap shut, Derp?
FPP
2021-04-05 21:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
So... how's it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Not fun, is it?
1) I don't live in Vermont, so I'm not on any side of this coin at all.
2) By gleefully taunting me over it, you've (unwittingly, one presumes)
tacitly admitted that the state is indeed engaging in unconstitutional and
illegal racial discrimination *and* implied that you approve of it.
So well done, there, chief. Not exactly the triumphant Usenet win you were
figuring on, huh?
Yeah, it was exactly what I was hoping for. Making you look like the
whiny little bitch you are is always a win.
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
FPP
2021-04-05 11:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin? Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
-----------------------
Vermont is prioritizing non-white people for vaccine eligibility over
the state's white residents, provoking no small amount of controversy
and constitutional concerns.
On Thursday, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott announced on Twitter that anyone
aged 16 or older who identifies as black, indigenous, or a person of
color, or lives in a household with someone who does, can get a COVID-19
vaccine.
That would seem to disadvantage the state residents who are white and
don't live with anyone identifying as non-white. The state currently
restricts vaccine eligibility for those people to those 50 years and
older, unless they qualify for a vaccine by virtue of being a health
care worker, employed in public safety, having a high-risk health
condition, or being a parent or caregiver of someone with a high-risk
health condition.
Mark Levine, the state's health commissioner, told VTDigger that people
of color are being prioritized for the vaccine because of their higher
rates of COVID-19 and lower rates of vaccination.
All Vermonters 16 or older, white or not, should be able to register for
a vaccine appointment by April 19, said Levine.
Some 34% of Vermont's population has received at least one vaccine dose,
making it the ninth most vaccinated state in the country. It ranks
middle of the pack in how many of its allocated vaccines it's actually
administered.
The prioritization of vaccine eligibility along explicitly racial lines
is unconstitutional, argues Cato Institute legal expert Walter Olson in
a December 2020 op-ed for The Detriot News written in response to the
Department of Veterans Affairs opening up vaccines to black, Asian,
Native American, and Hispanic veterans.
"This runs into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says
citizens of all races are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court has long interpreted this to mean that the government
may ordinarily not dole out valuable benefits, or impose harms, based on
a citizen's race," writes Olson.
It's true that people of color are more likely to be frontline workers
or have health conditions that make them more at risk of COVID-19
complications and death. However, directing vaccines to those
higher-risk people can, and should, still be done through race-neutral
categorization, says Olson.
"Many sensible priority rules do incidentally protect relatively more
minority persons-- and that's fine, so long as the decision is based on
the neutral grounds rather than being a pretext aimed at getting results
based on race," he writes.
All these problems identified with the V.A.'s policy would also apply to
Vermont's vaccination racial preferences.
In November, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC)
Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to prioritize
essential workers over the elderly for vaccine distribution, in part, on
the grounds that the elderly skew white, reports The Washington Free
Beacon.
The fact that we have COVID-19 vaccines that are both safe and effective
is a true miracle of modern medicine. Getting them in as many arms as
possible should be public policy goal number one. That is only
undermined when public health officials at any level of government start
creating arbitrary, racially discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional
categories for who can get a vaccine next.
https://reason.com/2021/04/02/vermont-is-prioritizing-bipoc-households-fo
r-vaccines-thats-almost-certainly-unconstitutional/
Gee... guess they should have gone with the Republican criteria, like
Ron DeSantis... "you pay, you play".
--
Memoriam for the Turd Reich: "Truth isn't truth!" (Yes, it is.)*
"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."
(Yes, it is.)*
"Our press secretary gave alternative facts" (No, he lied.)*
"I will never lie to you, you have my word on that" (Yes, you did... a
lot.)*

* Under New Management -January 20, 2021
Ubiquitous
2021-04-05 18:08:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
The state denying health care treatment to people based on the color of
their skin?
There are black people in Vermount?
Post by BTR1701
Who thinks this is remotely constitutional? Raise your hand.
Yes, moviePig, you can put yours down. Your agreement with this
neo-racism was anticipated.
You mispelled FPP.
I noticed he posted a double-fisted rapidfire followup as well.
#Triggered
Post by BTR1701
I was going to ask what criteria the state will be using to determine
who is actually white and non-white, but then I noticed that it only
says you have to *identify* as non-white, so a white person could
presumably say they identify as black and get the jab.
Take note, 'Liz Warden!

--
Trump won.
Loading...