RIP Bill On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 2:30 PM James Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> But did Ken see you on the grassy knoll? > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Bill Prince > *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:06 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots > > > > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Chuck McCown via AF > > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: Chuck McCown <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > 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: [email protected] > > 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> > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > Robert Andrews > > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > [email protected] > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > > > > > > -- > > AF mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *Total Control Panel* > > Login <https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net> > > To: [email protected] > <https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993&domain=litewire.net> > > From: [email protected] > > *You received this message because the domain afmug.com <http://afmug.com> > is on your allow list.* > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
