Wait! You saw Ken standing next to Bill? Were you there too? From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Robert Andrews Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:41 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
Standing next to you? On 12/14/2020 12:05 PM, Bill Prince wrote: > I'm close to the same age as Ken, and I saw him on the garssy knoll. > > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 12/14/2020 12:01 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: >> >> One case is actually still in court. >> >> In one case in Pennsylvania they were granted a court order saying >> they had to allow observers closer than 6 feet, but they lost that >> that one on appeal. >> >> Roughly 50 other cases were dismissed. Some were due to lack of >> standing, some because the court felt it couldn't provide the relief >> being asked for, some for being moot, some because the evidence was >> insufficient. >> >> In the famous "Release the Kraken" case, the judge responded that you >> have affidavits from people swearing that they believe something could >> have happened, not saying they actually saw something. Belief that >> something could have happened is not evidence that it did. Like I >> believe Ken Hohhof is old enough to be the second gunman on the grassy >> knoll. I could swear to that in an affidavit, but that's not evidence >> that he shot JFK. >> >> >> On 12/14/2020 2:52 PM, Chuck Macenski wrote: >>> Didn't they go to court in the states and lose? >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Steve Jones >>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>><mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com%3e%3e> >>> wrote: >>> >>> " I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm wrong) >>> is that they won't feel like they really lost unless they get to >>> make their arguments in a courtroom and THEN lose. I'm saying >>> they'll feel like they didn't really lose no matter what," >>> Yes. but its separating the Tim McVeighs from the Housewife Bettys. >>> So you have something like 80 percent of the trump voters >>> thinking he was robbed (oddly enough a CNN poll showed 10 percent >>> of democrat voters agreeing). Of that 80 percent, there probably >>> 25 percent youre not going to get to ever listen to anything, >>> theyre the ones who know alex jones is garbage but still listen >>> to him, they also believe theres a pizza joint selling child sex >>> slaves to rich people, theyre as bad as the cult of left 25 >>> percent that still believe the russian collusion delusion. The >>> remaining 55 percent will accept an actual case result from >>> supreme court, as much as most of us dont care for unelected >>> officials making decisions, the constitution matters. the biggest >>> problem is that as we speak, the ilk of alex jones are onboarding >>> them left and right. It doesnt help what West, who by most >>> measures is respected (aside from bigot libs who call him Tom, >>> but thats a whole other bucket of hypocrisy) is talking openly >>> about constitutional secession, not new speak, but given the >>> climate, a very bloody prospect. He would tone down with a >>> legitimate, constitutional ruling. Without it, the scotus is >>> literally saying there is no recourse against a percieved wrong >>> in the united states, at which point, the 2A becomes active. >>> Like it or not, this is what it is. >>> >>> Like I said, the ilk of mcveigh, weather underground, black >>> liberation army, ted Kaczynski, theyre all going to do what they >>> do, regardless >>> >>> I dont personally care either way, Ill survive the two years >>> biden is a half threat, Im not opposed to reeducation being not >>> illegal for a period either. I just cant tolerate coawardice at >>> the supreme court (the 3 last placements), and I dont like living >>> in grey areas and I dont like the likes of alex jones being given >>> credibility to my mother. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:15 PM Adam Moffett >>> <dmmoff...@gmail.com<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>><mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com%3e%3e> wrote: >>> >>> This case was dismissed for lack of standing. Other cases >>> were dismissed for a variety of reasons including the >>> evidence being specious or deficient. That's losing. All of >>> that is losing. If it was Steve Jones vs McCown Tech and it >>> was dismissed then you'd say you lost. There'd be no doubt >>> in your mind. >>> >>> I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm >>> wrong) is that they won't feel like they really lost unless >>> they get to make their arguments in a courtroom and THEN >>> lose. I'm saying they'll feel like they didn't really lose >>> no matter what, and a courtroom just gives them another >>> pulpit to preach from. If the evidence sucks, the arguments >>> are illogical, and/or they're asking for relief that the >>> court can't give them, then dismissing is the right move. >>> >>> >>> On 12/14/2020 12:34 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>> Thats the issue, they havent "lost in court" they never went >>>> to court. The court responsible for hearing it. No one is >>>> saying hear every case, but cases of national importance and >>>> with immense national consequence need not ever be punted. >>>> The vast majority of pro 2A people understand the 2a >>>> isnt there for hunting game adn the lack of action on scotus >>>> part will result in action elsewhere. There will be blood >>>> over this, and its not necessary. Once scotus actually ruled >>>> after hearing the case, most would move on. The tim mcveighs >>>> out there are building their bombs regardless. But Jane Q >>>> would probably go back to canning beets. Instead right now >>>> shes listening to alex jones (why does covid take charlie >>>> pride, but not alex jones, somebody explain this) >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:18 AM Adam Moffett >>>> <dmmoff...@gmail.com<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>><mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com%3e%3e> wrote: >>>> >>>> If they heard every argument and /then/ dismissed it, >>>> isn't that just a different kind of political messaging? >>>> Expedience mattered in this case because the EC vote was >>>> imminent. >>>> >>>> I realize there are nutters who will rationalize the >>>> outcome as "we were right, but the court didn't want to >>>> hear it because of a technicality." But if they went >>>> all the way through with it the same people would come >>>> up with some other reasoning why they actually were >>>> right. There are still people who insist Nixon was >>>> framed, and people still think Iraq had functional >>>> WMD's. Forevermore there will be people who believe >>>> Donald Trump actually won the 2020 election, and nothing >>>> the court says will ever change their minds. Losing in >>>> court >50 times didn't matter to them, why would one more? >>>> >>>> I'm ready for "justsumname" to pipe and prove me right. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/14/2020 11:55 AM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>> That's exactly why the supreme court needed to do their >>>>> job and hear it. Then smack it down, I don't like the >>>>> supreme court making decisions out of political >>>>> expedience as they did here (hint the last 3). Hell, >>>>> these arent even states actually at each other, its >>>>> elected state officials. Scotus needed to put case law >>>>> with a ruling (this wasnt a ruling) in the books. >>>>> >>>>> There will be violence that could have been avoided. >>>>> Outcome of the "case" would have been the same either way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:24 AM Adam Moffett >>>>> <dmmoff...@gmail.com<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>><mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com%3e%3e> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There's a school of thought that since their >>>>> jurisdiction is exclusive, the Supreme Court has an >>>>> obligation to hear /any/ case a state brings no >>>>> matter how flawed it might be. Their feeling is >>>>> that since there's no higher power to appeal to, >>>>> that they /have /to hear the case so that it gets >>>>> heard. Thomas and Alito are in that school of >>>>> thought, and that's why they expressed the opinion >>>>> they did. >>>>> >>>>> My reading of it is that the only disagreement was >>>>> whether to tell Texas to go away before or after >>>>> they're allowed to file their complaints. Either >>>>> way, the court unanimously told Texas to pound >>>>> sand. The only way this is unclear is if someone >>>>> willfully interprets it that way. If someone is >>>>> inclined it interpret it that way, then they would >>>>> have been unhappy with any outcome. There was >>>>> absolutely zero chance that the Supreme Court of >>>>> the US would overturn one state's election at the >>>>> behest of another. Especially based on the argument >>>>> that "their election processes hurt us." If they >>>>> did that, then similar suits would happen every 4 >>>>> years henceforth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/12/2020 10:31 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>> We need to have scotus do their damn job and get >>>>>> case law. If they keep punting for politics it >>>>>> will get stupid. This team when one snaps out you >>>>>> dont get some cross dresser popping through a >>>>>> crowd to bike lock someone and scurrying off, you >>>>>> get Oklahoma city. They need to shut the shit down >>>>>> or pay the cost of the product they purchased. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:24 PM Bill Prince >>>>>> <part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com> >>>>>> <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>><mailto:part15...@gmail.com%3e%3e> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> bp >>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/12/2020 4:10 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t know what was more bizarre, that >>>>>>> music video, or Chuck being the one who sent >>>>>>> it. Who knew. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> *On >>>>>>> Behalf >>>>>>> Of *Bill Prince >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM >>>>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com<mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com><mailto:af@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are >>>>>>> idiots >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bp >>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: AF<af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To:af@af.afmug.com<mailto:To:af@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com><mailto:af@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown<ch...@go-mtc.com><mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com%3e> >>>>>>> <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com><mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Bill Prince >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To:af@af.afmug.com<mailto:To:af@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com><mailto:af@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First place I heard it was from Molly Wood on Make Me Smart: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en><https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en%3e> >>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en><https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was not familiar with the term banana-pants. A Google search yields >>>>>>> >>>>>>> lots of results, mostly photos of banana pants, as well as some songs, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> none of which shed much light on the subject for me. I assume it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> means cra-cra? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: AF<af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com><mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com%3e> On >>>>>>> Behalf Of Robert Andrews >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To:af@af.afmug.com<mailto:To:af@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:af@af.afmug.com><mailto:af@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This was similar to how the south leaders hauled all the regular >>>>>>> >>>>>>> people into the civil war. Yes they did a good job stirring things up >>>>>>> >>>>>>> before. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/12/2020 11:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The people who should really be looking at this are the citizens in >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the states who think it's appropriate for their AG to sue another >>>>>>> >>>>>>> state's election results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The suit was what I would call banana-pants. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/11/2020 4:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> >>> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com><mailto:AF@af.afmug.com%3e> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> > > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com ________________________________ Total Control Panel Login<https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net> To: ja...@litewire.net<https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993&domain=litewire.net> From: af-boun...@af.afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> You received this message because the domain afmug.com is on your allow list.
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com