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./
