Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jaime Solorza]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 9:02 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> So now theyve moved on to a 100 year old law (wtf is this law about?
> Really look it up, jaime, I'm curious) that let's any Congress person
> complaint, and then theres 2 hours debate, butnif two hours debate happens
> and a red dog walks through a cheerio on tuesday wit a left hip limp... I
> think rush may have imbibed on morphine.
> Anyway, we are finally to the point where the right is almost ready to be
> 10 percent as annoying as the left for the last 4 years (hows that mrs
> president?)
> Seriously, let's just start shooting
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 1:13 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the
>> huge voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million chose
>> to sit out this election.
>>
>> There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can
>> figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>>> Discretion being the key.
>>>
>>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40
>>> million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether
>>> what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their
>>> communications have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you
>>> never know what they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear
>>> black clothes, masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly
>>> like beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy
>>> pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.
>>>
>>> Either way
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
 case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
 like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
 lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
 No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
 fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
 SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
 script played out over and over again.

 On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the
> issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are 
> being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
>
>>>
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

I used to have a cat named ashtray, it's a whole different thread about
why. But anyway ashtray has this orange cat associate named orange cat.
Both male. There was this black cat, seriously looked like he slept under a
leaky oil pan. Anyway, ashtray used to love taking orange cat in my mom's
front yard. Right in front of the rose Bush. Orange cat would let out that
cat howl while he was being addressed by ashtray.
This black cat would slink up and just watch this happen. And this wasnt a
one time thing, it was pretty regular. Ashtray would come up on orange cat
and bite him neck, drag him to the front of the Bush. Orange cat would cat
howl and the black cat would belly out from under the pine tree, slink over
and just watch as ashtray reminded orange cat what was what. I feel like me
in that, watching animals doing weird shit. Also I loved grabbing orange
cats tail and lifting it, listening to him howl.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020, 10:01 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> So now theyve moved on to a 100 year old law (wtf is this law about?
> Really look it up, jaime, I'm curious) that let's any Congress person
> complaint, and then theres 2 hours debate, butnif two hours debate happens
> and a red dog walks through a cheerio on tuesday wit a left hip limp... I
> think rush may have imbibed on morphine.
> Anyway, we are finally to the point where the right is almost ready to be
> 10 percent as annoying as the left for the last 4 years (hows that mrs
> president?)
> Seriously, let's just start shooting
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 1:13 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the
>> huge voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million chose
>> to sit out this election.
>>
>> There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can
>> figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>>
>> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>>> Discretion being the key.
>>>
>>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40
>>> million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether
>>> what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their
>>> communications have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you
>>> never know what they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear
>>> black clothes, masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly
>>> like beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy
>>> pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.
>>>
>>> Either way
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
 case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
 like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
 lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
 No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
 fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
 SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
 script played out over and over again.

 On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the
> issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are 
> being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
>
>>>
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

So now theyve moved on to a 100 year old law (wtf is this law about? Really
look it up, jaime, I'm curious) that let's any Congress person complaint,
and then theres 2 hours debate, butnif two hours debate happens and a red
dog walks through a cheerio on tuesday wit a left hip limp... I think rush
may have imbibed on morphine.
Anyway, we are finally to the point where the right is almost ready to be
10 percent as annoying as the left for the last 4 years (hows that mrs
president?)
Seriously, let's just start shooting

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 1:13 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the huge
> voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million chose to
> sit out this election.
>
> There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can
> figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>> Discretion being the key.
>>
>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
>> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
>> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
>> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
>> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
>> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
>> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
>> latino wasnt kidding.
>>
>> Either way
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
>>> case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
>>> like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
>>> lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
>>> No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
>>> fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
>>> SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
>>> script played out over and over again.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue
 a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
 effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
 shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
 dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
 convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
 it.



>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Carl Peterson]

Brad Parscale did an amazing job of doing this (re getting people out from
under their rocks).  Killer voter identification and turnout operation.
Pretty much done the same way you would run a local election except with
lots of data and on a national level.  They knew their voters and they knew
they were going to turn out.  The problem was that they thought they were
expanding their universe while the Democrats were working with the same
universe.  Classic mistake.  That's  not to say the Dems ran a good
operation, it was crap, but Trump's dislike numbers are so high he drove
turnout of people to vote against him.  If the Democrats were smart they
would put AOC in charge for 2022.  She knows how to run a campaign.


On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 1:13 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the huge
> voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million chose to
> sit out this election.
>
> There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can
> figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
>
> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>> Discretion being the key.
>>
>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
>> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
>> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
>> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
>> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
>> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
>> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
>> latino wasnt kidding.
>>
>> Either way
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
>>> case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
>>> like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
>>> lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
>>> No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
>>> fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
>>> SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
>>> script played out over and over again.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue
 a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
 effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
 shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
 dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
 convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
 it.



>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert Andrews]

Like not doing voter suppression?

On 12/15/2020 11:12 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the 
huge voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million 
chose to sit out this election.


There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can 
figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.



bp


On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones > wrote:


Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide
berth of discretion, they are the literal last line prior to
violent engagement. So, say the feds want to add a tea tax on
Massachusetts. Massachusetts says hey, I'm harmed by this. Without
a hearing the court says, nope, no merit. Massachusetts says, hey
now, we really think you should hear us out.
Discretion being the key.

We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40
million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds .
Whether what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it
is, and their communications have been forced out of the public's
surveillance, so you never know what they're going to do next.
They're not the kind who wear black clothes, masks, and disappear
right after they do something cowardly like beat an old man in a
wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
latino wasnt kidding.

Either way

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>>
wrote:

I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in
public is nothing like anything presented in any court.  It
isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q. 
Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.  You can't

then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud. When the PA
supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and
do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This
basic script played out over and over again.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying
giving the issue a day in court might convince some people
that justice was done more effectively than simply
dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary shouldn't
have to consider political angles like that.  The cases
are being dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack
merit.  If that doesn't convince people, then neither
would taking the case to court and losing it.






-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com







--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at
  the huge voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80
  million chose to sit out this election.
There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone
  who can figure out how to get these people out from under their
  rocks.


bp

On 12/14/2020 6:26 PM, Lewis Bergman
  wrote:


  
  I think you underestimate the apathy of most
Americans
  
  
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM
  Steve Jones 
  wrote:


  Scotus is unique in that they arent elected,
they ha e a wide berth of discretion, they are the literal
last line prior to violent engagement. So, say the feds want
to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says hey,
I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope,
no merit. Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you
should hear us out.
Discretion being the key.


We are at the point of a harbor being a tea
  kettle in close to 40 million of the most heavily armed
  people on the planets minds . Whether what they think is
  real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their
  communications have been forced out of the public's
  surveillance, so you never know what they're going to do
  next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes, masks,
  and disappear right after they do something cowardly like
  beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the
  italian guy pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.


Either way
  
  
  
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19
  PM Carl Peterson 
  wrote:


  
I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought,
  or even what case/issue the SC should hear out.  The
  "case" argued in public is nothing like anything
  presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
  lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you
  alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.  You can't
  then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud. 
  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you
  can't go to the SC and do the same.  They will rightly
  tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
  over and over again.   


  On Mon, Dec 14, 2020
at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
wrote:
  
  

  If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's
saying giving the issue a day in court might
convince some people that justice was done more
effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An
independent judiciary shouldn't have to consider
political angles like that.  The cases are being
dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack
merit.  If that doesn't convince people, then
neither would taking the case to court and
losing it.  
  
  
  
  

  

  

  

  


  

  

  

  

  

  


  


  

  
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

  
  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

  
  
  

  


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

I was reading an article once on satanism. The author was saying that many
satanists dont subscribe to evil. basically they believe in god, heaven all
that. Lucifer was this crazy funtime uncle, always having a good time, and
God was an old get off my lawn curmudgeon. So Lucifer took his sweet camaro
and split lamesville to go start hell, as in hello, are we having a good
time yet? They dont really care which direction you go, youll be happy at
either place, heaven is for the uptight sticklers, and hell is a 24x7
eternal party with cocaine hookers and no rising netflix fees. Was a pretty
good salesman for satanism

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:28 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Don't give him any ideas...
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 10:05 PM James Howard  wrote:
>
>> I had to re-read this.  First glance I thought you said you were a
>> Satanist……….  Guess I need to go to bed earlier……
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 8:32 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>
>>
>>
>> Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the
>> feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a
>> statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like
>> violence
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>>
>> Discretion being the key.
>>
>>
>>
>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
>> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
>> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
>> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
>> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
>> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
>> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
>> latino wasnt kidding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Either way
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue
>> the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like
>> anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't
>> given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.
>> You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA
>> supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.
>> They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
>> over and over again.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
>> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
>> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
>> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
>> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> 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=litewire.net>
>>
>> From: af-boun...@af.afmug.com
>>
>> *You received this message because the domain afmug.com
>> <http://afmug.com> is on your allow list.*
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Mathew Howard]

Don't give him any ideas...

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 10:05 PM James Howard  wrote:

> I had to re-read this.  First glance I thought you said you were a
> Satanist……….  Guess I need to go to bed earlier……
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 8:32 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
>
> Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the
> feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a
> statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like
> violence
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>
> Discretion being the key.
>
>
>
> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
> latino wasnt kidding.
>
>
>
> Either way
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
> wrote:
>
> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue
> the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like
> anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't
> given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.
> You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA
> supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.
> They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
> over and over again.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> 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=litewire.net>
>
> From: af-boun...@af.afmug.com
>
> *You received this message because the domain afmug.com <http://afmug.com>
> is on your allow list.*
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[James Howard]

I had to re-read this.  First glance I thought you said you were a 
Satanist..  Guess I need to go to bed earlier..

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:32 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the 
feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a 
statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like violence

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of 
discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So, say 
the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says hey, I'm 
harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit. Massachusetts 
says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
Discretion being the key.

We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million of 
the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they think is 
real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications have been 
forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what they're going 
to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes, masks, and disappear 
right after they do something cowardly like beat an old man in a wheelchair. 
They also believe the italian guy pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.

Either way

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:
I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue the 
SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like anything 
presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't given an 
opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.  You can't 
then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA supreme court 
declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.  They will rightly 
tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out over and over again.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a day 
in court might convince some people that justice was done more effectively than 
simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary shouldn't have to 
consider political angles like that.  The cases are being dismissed because 
they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't convince people, then 
neither would taking the case to court and losing it.





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
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
--
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=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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

It’s all bluster.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2020, at 8:10 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't think the gun nuts and militiamen stand a chance against the national 
> guard if they wanna rebel and spill blood over trump losing the election fair 
> and square. 
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:33 PM Steve Jones  wrote:
>> Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the 
>> feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a 
>> statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like 
>> violence 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman  wrote:
>>> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>>> 
 On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones  
 wrote:
 Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of 
 discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. 
 So, say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts 
 says hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no 
 merit. Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
 Discretion being the key.
 
 We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million 
 of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they 
 think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications 
 have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what 
 they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes, 
 masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an 
 old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to 
 be latino wasnt kidding.
 
 Either way
 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson  
> wrote:
> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue 
> the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like 
> anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't 
> given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK 
> then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When 
> the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do 
> the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script 
> played out over and over again.   
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue 
>> a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more 
>> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary 
>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are 
>> being dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that 
>> doesn't convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and 
>> losing it.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Darin Steffl]

I don't think the gun nuts and militiamen stand a chance against the
national guard if they wanna rebel and spill blood over trump losing the
election fair and square.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:33 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the
> feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a
> statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like
> violence
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
>> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>>> Discretion being the key.
>>>
>>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40
>>> million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether
>>> what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their
>>> communications have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you
>>> never know what they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear
>>> black clothes, masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly
>>> like beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy
>>> pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.
>>>
>>> Either way
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
 case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
 like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
 lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
 No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
 fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
 SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
 script played out over and over again.

 On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the
> issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are 
> being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
>
>>>
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the
feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a
statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like
violence

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman  wrote:

> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
>> Discretion being the key.
>>
>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
>> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
>> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
>> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
>> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
>> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
>> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
>> latino wasnt kidding.
>>
>> Either way
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
>>> case/issue the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing
>>> like anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's
>>> lawyers weren't given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.
>>> No.  Well OK then.  You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege
>>> fraud.  When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the
>>> SC and do the same.  They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic
>>> script played out over and over again.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue
 a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
 effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
 shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
 dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
 convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
 it.



>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Lewis Bergman]

I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
> Discretion being the key.
>
> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
> of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
> think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
> have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
> they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
> masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
> old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
> latino wasnt kidding.
>
> Either way
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue
>> the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like
>> anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't
>> given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.
>> You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA
>> supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.
>> They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
>> over and over again.
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue
>>> a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
>>> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
>>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
>>> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
>>> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Pound of flesh also comes out of that story.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:
> 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

That play is where the term originates.  Main character.  Jewish money lender.  
His name is Shylock.  Very good story,

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2020, at 3:26 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> I cant read anything with the word shylock in it, thats an offensive term
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:53 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:
>> I would agree, it would have perhaps shut some up, satisfied a few others.  
>> The outcome would have been the same so why go through the motions. 
>>  
>> Kinda like forcing a team to run a play rather than take a knee. 
>>  
>> Steve I would recommend a reading of the merchant of Venice...  Then answer 
>> whether or not Shylock got justice. 
>>  
>> From: Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:48 PM
>> To: Chuck McCown via AF
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>  
>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a 
>> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more 
>> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary 
>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being 
>> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't 
>> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing it.  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
>>> Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania. 
>>>  
>>> If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no 
>>> standing. 
>>> Irrespective of jurisdiction. 
>>>  
>>> From: Steve Jones
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
>>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>  
>>> merit would be decided in court
>>>  
>>> " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of 
>>> complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
>>>  
>>> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos 
>>> reference dissent)
>>>  
>>>   155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for 
>>> leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under 
>>> Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially 
>>> cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its 
>>> elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of 
>>> Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have 
>>> discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls 
>>> within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ 
>>> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the 
>>> motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and 
>>> I express no view on any other issue.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like 
>>> it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when 
>>> the opportunity presented.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>>> I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS 
>>>> refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff 
>>>> has no standing. They said so, and that's it.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> bp
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>>> 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice
>>>>>  
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF  
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
>>>>>> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant 
>>>>>> cert”. 
>>>>>> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all 
>>>>>> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not 
>>>>>> granted. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have 
>>>>>> allowed the states to ge

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of
discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So,
say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says
hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit.
Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.
Discretion being the key.

We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million
of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they
think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications
have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what
they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes,
masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an
old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
latino wasnt kidding.

Either way

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue
> the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like
> anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't
> given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.
> You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA
> supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.
> They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
> over and over again.
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
>> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
>> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
>> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
>> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
>> it.
>>
>>
>>

> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jason McKemie]

t;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  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 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   *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>
>>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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   On Behalf Of 
>>>> Robert Andrews
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> AF mailing list
>>>>
>>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> AF mailing list
>>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

I cant read anything with the word shylock in it, thats an offensive term

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:53 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> I would agree, it would have perhaps shut some up, satisfied a few
> others.  The outcome would have been the same so why go through the
> motions.
>
> Kinda like forcing a team to run a play rather than take a knee.
>
> Steve I would recommend a reading of the merchant of Venice...  Then
> answer whether or not Shylock got justice.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:48 PM
> *To:* Chuck McCown via AF
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
> On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
>
> Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.
>
> If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no
> standing.
> Irrespective of jurisdiction.
>
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
> merit would be decided in court
>
> " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of
> complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
>
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos
> reference dissent)
>
>   155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for
> leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under
> Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
> cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its
> elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of
> Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have
> discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls
> within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the
> motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and
> I express no view on any other issue.
>
>
> This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like
> it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when
> the opportunity presented.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS
>> refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff
>> has no standing. They said so, and that's it.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>> 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
>>> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant
>>> cert”.
>>> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.
>>>
>>> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all
>>> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not
>>> granted.
>>>
>>> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have
>>> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste
>>> of time.
>>>
>>> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision
>>> against Texas?
>>> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v
>>> state case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from
>>> their perspective.
>>>
>>> I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the
>>> case.  Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant
>>> us an en banc hearing so we appealed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Bill Prince
>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>
>>>
>&g

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

you go through the motions so people dont go to war with each other. There
is precedent in that in the existence of any court, kind of its purpose.
Article 3 state controversy between states, it doesnt dictate a statute
must be in effect.

Like I keep saying, im good either way. I have the tools I need to try out
ideas I cant under the current constrictions of "peacetime". I personally
win no matter how it goes. I just dont want to hear anybody acting like
there wasnt a way to avoid certain outcomes

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:53 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> I would agree, it would have perhaps shut some up, satisfied a few
> others.  The outcome would have been the same so why go through the
> motions.
>
> Kinda like forcing a team to run a play rather than take a knee.
>
> Steve I would recommend a reading of the merchant of Venice...  Then
> answer whether or not Shylock got justice.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:48 PM
> *To:* Chuck McCown via AF
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
> On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:
>
> Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.
>
> If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no
> standing.
> Irrespective of jurisdiction.
>
> *From:* Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
> merit would be decided in court
>
> " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of
> complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
>
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos
> reference dissent)
>
>   155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for
> leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under
> Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
> cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its
> elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of
> Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have
> discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls
> within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the
> motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and
> I express no view on any other issue.
>
>
> This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like
> it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when
> the opportunity presented.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS
>> refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff
>> has no standing. They said so, and that's it.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>> 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
>>> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant
>>> cert”.
>>> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.
>>>
>>> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all
>>> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not
>>> granted.
>>>
>>> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have
>>> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste
>>> of time.
>>>
>>> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision
>>> against Texas?
>>> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v
>>> state case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from
>>> their perspective.
>>>
>>> I actually asked from a writ of cert

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Carl Peterson]

I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue
the SC should hear out.  The "case" argued in public is nothing like
anything presented in any court.  It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't
given an opportunity.  Q.  Are you alleging fraud?  A.  No.  Well OK then.
You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud.  When the PA
supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same.
They will rightly tell you to pound sand.  This basic script played out
over and over again.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a
> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more
> effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary
> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are being
> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't
> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing
> it.
>
>
>
>>>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

So Chuck was the shooter?

On 12/14/2020 4:53 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Just because you didn't understand the issue doesn't prove that you 
weren't on the grassy knoll with Ken and Bill... we've clearly 
established that you were alive at the time, and therefore could have 
been.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Chuck McCown via AF <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> wrote:


I remember all the grups being upset about Kennedy, but I didn’t
understand the issue.
*From:* James Howard
*Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:35 PM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

Well…… that is a lifelong issue for some people.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown via AF
*Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 3:15 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Cc:* Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.

*From:*Bill Prince

*Sent:*Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM

*To:*af@af.afmug.com

    *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



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
 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 t

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Mathew Howard]

Just because you didn't understand the issue doesn't prove that you weren't
on the grassy knoll with Ken and Bill... we've clearly established that you
were alive at the time, and therefore could have been.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:40 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> I remember all the grups being upset about Kennedy, but I didn’t
> understand the issue.
>
> *From:* James Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:35 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
> Well…… that is a lifelong issue for some people.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown via AF
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 3:15 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Cc:* Chuck McCown 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
>
> I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Prince
>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM
>
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>
> *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
>
> 
>
> 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 
> 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  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 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

I would agree, it would have perhaps shut some up, satisfied a few others.  The 
outcome would have been the same so why go through the motions.  

Kinda like forcing a team to run a play rather than take a knee.  

Steve I would recommend a reading of the merchant of Venice...  Then answer 
whether or not Shylock got justice.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:48 PM
To: Chuck McCown via AF 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a day 
in court might convince some people that justice was done more effectively than 
simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary shouldn't have to 
consider political angles like that.  The cases are being dismissed because 
they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that doesn't convince people, then 
neither would taking the case to court and losing it.  




On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:

  Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.  

  If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no 
standing.  
  Irrespective of jurisdiction.  

  From: Steve Jones 
  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
  To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  merit would be decided in court 

  " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of 
complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction." 

  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos 
reference dissent)


155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for 
leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article 
III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable 
interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other 
pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom 
Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing 
of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. 
See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., 
dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint 
but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. 


  This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like it 
or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when the 
opportunity presented.


  On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS 
refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff has 
no standing. They said so, and that's it.



bp
On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

  2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice

  On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF  
wrote:

To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant 
cert”.  
I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.  

They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all 
of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not granted.  

Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have 
allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste of 
time.  

So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision 
against Texas?
The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v 
state case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from their 
perspective.  

I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the 
case.  Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us 
an en banc hearing so we appealed.  




From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states 
have sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or 
below). The only time there is an issue is when there is some boundary-related 
issue that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't border any of the 
defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's the correct term is that 
Texas has no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.



bp
On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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 
hear

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue 
a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more 
effectively than simply dismissing the case.  An independent judiciary 
shouldn't have to consider political angles like that.  The cases are 
being dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit.  If that 
doesn't convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and 
losing it.



On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:

Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.
If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no 
standing.

Irrespective of jurisdiction.
*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
merit would be decided in court
" In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill 
of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf 
<https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf> (alitos 
reference dissent)
  155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion 
for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing 
under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a 
judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State 
conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as 
moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In 
my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of 
complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See 
Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., 
dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of 
complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on 
any other issue.
This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. 
Like it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it 
down when the opportunity presented.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so.
SCOTUS refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they
think the plaintiff has no standing. They said so, and that's it.

bp


On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with...
cowardice
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF
 wrote:

To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of
certiorari.
Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they
“grant cert”.
I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.
They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not. 
Sounds like all of them thought this would be a waste of
their time and cert was not granted.
Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue
should have allowed the states to get heard but even those
two thought it was a waste of time.
So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous
decision against Texas?
The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any
state v state case should get automatically heard.  I guess
that test failed from their perspective.
I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully
recall the case.  Had to do with telephone rates and the
circuit court would not grant us an en banc hearing so we
appealed.
*From:* Bill Prince
*Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
        *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the
states have sovereignty relative to each other, and no state
is above another (or below). The only time there is an issue
is when there is some boundary-related issue that requires a
higher authority (and Texas doesn't border any of the
defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's the
correct term is that Texas has no standing in this case. AKA
pound sand.

bp


On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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 befor

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

I remember all the grups being upset about Kennedy, but I didn’t understand the 
issue.  

From: James Howard 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:35 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

Well…… that is a lifelong issue for some people.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:15 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

 

I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.  

 

From: Bill Prince 

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM

To: af@af.afmug.com 

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.

 

bpOn 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  
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  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 h

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Funny, the problem returns given enough time.  

From: James Howard 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:35 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

Well…… that is a lifelong issue for some people.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:15 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

 

I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.  

 

From: Bill Prince 

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM

To: af@af.afmug.com 

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.

 

bpOn 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  
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  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 n

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania.  

If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no standing.  
Irrespective of jurisdiction.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

merit would be decided in court 

" In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of 
complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction." 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos reference 
dissent)


  155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for 
leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article 
III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable 
interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other 
pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom 
Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing 
of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. 
See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., 
dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint 
but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. 


This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like it or 
not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when the 
opportunity presented.
 


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

  I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS refuses 
to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff has no 
standing. They said so, and that's it.



bp
On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

  To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
  Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant 
cert”.  
  I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.  

  They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all 
of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not granted.  

  Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have 
allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste of 
time.  

  So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision 
against Texas?
  The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v 
state case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from their 
perspective.  

  I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the case.  
Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us an en 
banc hearing so we appealed.  




  From: Bill Prince 
  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
  To: af@af.afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states have 
sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or below). 
The only time there is an issue is when there is some boundary-related issue 
that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't border any of the defendant 
states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's the correct term is that Texas has 
no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.



bp
On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[James Howard]

Well…… that is a lifelong issue for some people.

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:15 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.

From: Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com<mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
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


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 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> 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 
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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 a

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

merit would be decided in court

" In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of
complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos
reference dissent)

  155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for
leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under
Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially
cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its
elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have
discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls
within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the
motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and
I express no view on any other issue.


This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like
it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when
the opportunity presented.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS
> refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff
> has no standing. They said so, and that's it.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
> wrote:
>
>> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
>> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant
>> cert”.
>> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.
>>
>> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all
>> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not
>> granted.
>>
>> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have
>> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste
>> of time.
>>
>> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision
>> against Texas?
>> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v
>> state case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from
>> their perspective.
>>
>> I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the case.
>> Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us an
>> en banc hearing so we appealed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>
>>
>> That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states have
>> sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or
>> below). The only time there is an issue is when there is some
>> boundary-related issue that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't
>> border any of the defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's
>> the correct term is that Texas has no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so.
  SCOTUS refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they
  think the plaintiff has no standing. They said so, and that's it.


bp

On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones
  wrote:


  
  2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to
contend with... cowardice
  
  
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09
  PM Chuck McCown via AF <af@af.afmug.com> wrote:


  

  
To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ
  of certiorari.
Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the
  case they “grant cert”.  
I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the
  states.  
 
They can decide if it is a waste of their time or
  not.  Sounds like all of them thought this would be a
  waste of their time and cert was not granted.  
 
Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction
  issue should have allowed the states to get heard but
  even those two thought it was a waste of time.  
 
So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a
  unanimous decision against Texas?
The other cases joined more to try to make the case
  that any state v state case should get automatically
  heard.  I guess that test failed from their
  perspective.  
 
I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t
  fully recall the case.  Had to do with telephone rates
  and the circuit court would not grant us an en banc
  hearing so we appealed.  
 
 
 

  
 

  From: Bill Prince 
  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05
AM
  To: af@af.afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all
    Texans are idiots

  
   


  That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is
that all the states have sovereignty relative to
each other, and no state is above another (or
below). The only time there is an issue is when
there is some boundary-related issue that requires a
higher authority (and Texas doesn't border any of
the defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if
that's the correct term is that Texas has no
standing in this case. AKA pound sand.
   
  bp

  On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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 hav

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant
> cert”.
> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.
>
> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all of
> them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not granted.
>
> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have
> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste
> of time.
>
> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision
> against Texas?
> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v state
> case should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from their
> perspective.
>
> I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the case.
> Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us an
> en banc hearing so we appealed.
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
> That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states have
> sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or
> below). The only time there is an issue is when there is some
> boundary-related issue that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't
> border any of the defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's
> the correct term is that Texas has no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.
>
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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  wrote:
>
>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> 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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> 
>>
>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>>
>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>
>> Cc: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Subject:

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

I was still probably crapping in my pants back then.  

From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 1:05 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
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
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  
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  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 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert Andrews]

I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on murder in TX, so no.

On 12/14/2020 12:59 PM, James Howard wrote:

Wait!  You saw Ken standing next to Bill?  Were you there too?

*From:* AF  *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
 > 
 >
 > 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
 >>> 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
 >>> 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 bein

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari.
Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant cert”.  
I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states.  

They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not.  Sounds like all of them 
thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not granted.  

Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have allowed the 
states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste of time.  

So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision against 
Texas?
The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v state case 
should get automatically heard.  I guess that test failed from their 
perspective.  

I actually asked from a writ of cert once.  Don’t fully recall the case.  Had 
to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant us an en banc 
hearing so we appealed.  




From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states have 
sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or below). 
The only time there is an issue is when there is some boundary-related issue 
that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't border any of the defendant 
states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's the correct term is that Texas has 
no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.



bp
On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett 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  wrote:

  Deep within this troll, the force runs.   




bp
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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots







bpOn 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji? -Original Message-From: AF 
mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AFSent: Saturday, 
December 12, 2020 4:30 PMTo: af@af.afmug.comCc: Chuck McCown 
mailto:chuck@go-mtc.comSubject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots 
https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY -Original Message-From: Bill PrinceSent: 
Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PMTo: af@af.afmug.comSubject: 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>
  bp 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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of 
Robert AndrewsSent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PMTo: 
af@af.afmug.comSubject: 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 wh

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[James Howard]

Wait!  You saw Ken standing next to Bill?  Were you there too?

From: AF  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
> 
>
> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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.

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert Andrews]

         *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are
idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of Chuck 
McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

    Cc: Chuck McCown 
<mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

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:af@af.afmug.com>

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



  


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
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of 
Robert Andrews

    Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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



  


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>

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  

  

  



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
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


-- 
 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

RIP Bill

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 2:30 PM James Howard  wrote:

> But did Ken see you on the grassy knoll?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:06 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *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
>
> 
>
> 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 
> 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  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.

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[James Howard]

But did Ken see you on the grassy knoll?

From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:06 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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


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 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> 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 
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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 bomb

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Mathew Howard]

>>> 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 
>>> 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  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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

 video, or Chuck being
the one who sent it. 
Who knew.
   
  

  From:
AF 
On Behalf Of Bill
Prince
Sent:
Saturday, December
12, 2020 5:55 PM
    To: af@af.afmug.com
                Subject: Re:
        [AFMUG] OT: Not all
Texans are idiots

  
   
  
   
  bp
  
  
On
  12/12/2020 2:55 PM,
  Ken Hohhof wrote:
  
  
Is there a mind blown emoji?
 
-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
                Cc: Chuck McCown 
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
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

 
 
bp

 
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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
                  To: af@af.afmug.com
  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.

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

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 
>>> 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  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  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>&g

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

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
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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
mailto:part15...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of
*Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
            *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are
idiots

bp

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck Macenski]

s 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  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  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bp
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> 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   *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> bp
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>
>>>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY
>&

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

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  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  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 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   *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>
>>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Lewis Bergman]

 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  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  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 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   *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>
>>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 result

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

Prince
mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
        *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

        Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

    To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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>  
<https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>

  

  


bp



  


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  
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews

    Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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



  


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>

http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com  
<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  <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
<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/listinf

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

Alito and Thomas think that since there's is the only jurisdiction on 
such a matter that they have a responsibility to hear the case no matter 
how stupid it is.  They can make that argument and support it, but it's 
obviously a minority opinion.


On 12/14/2020 12:59 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Alito disagrees with you and cites the case law.

Without stating it, he got his tone through on the likely outcome.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 11:35 AM Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:


Declining to hear the case because, in the opinion of this court,
Texas does not have standing, is case law.  The court can't decide
to hear the case in order to decide that they shouldn't have
decided to hear the case.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:56 AM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> 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
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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
mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill
Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

Cc: Chuck McCown  
<mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

        To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Alito disagrees with you and cites the case law.

Without stating it, he got his tone through on the likely outcome.

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 11:35 AM Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Declining to hear the case because, in the opinion of this court, Texas
> does not have standing, is case law.  The court can't decide to hear the
> case in order to decide that they shouldn't have decided to hear the case.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:56 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  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  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> 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   *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>
>>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert]

  THIS    (those are down arrows)...   Because even states 
should be discouraged from filing bad cases to SCOTUS..


On 12/14/20 9:34 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Declining to hear the case because, in the opinion of this court, 
Texas does not have standing, is case law.  The court can't decide to 
hear the case in order to decide that they shouldn't have decided to 
hear the case.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:56 AM Steve Jones 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> 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 mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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
mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

    To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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>  
<https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>

  

  


bp



  


On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken H

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

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  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  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  wrote:
>>
>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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   *On
>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrot

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Carl Peterson]

Declining to hear the case because, in the opinion of this court, Texas
does not have standing, is case law.  The court can't decide to hear the
case in order to decide that they shouldn't have decided to hear the case.


On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:56 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  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  wrote:
>>
>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>> 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   *On
>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bp
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>>
>>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>
>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>
>>> I was not familiar with the term banana-pants.  A

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

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 
  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
  Sent: Saturday, December 12,
  2020 5:55 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not
  all Texans are idiots
  

 

 
bp


  On 12/12/2020 2:55
PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


  Is there a mind blown emoji?
   
  -Original Message-
  From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Cc: Chuck McCown 
          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
          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
  
   
   
  bp
  
   
  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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
            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
  
   
  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
 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert]

& it will be that way for those people until it finally ends up in 
People's Court and Judge Judy rules it invalid...


On 12/14/20 9:17 AM, Adam Moffett 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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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 mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
    *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> 
 On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

        Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

        To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

*pipe up and prove me right.

Is what I meant to say.


On 12/14/2020 12:17 PM, Adam Moffett 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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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 mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> 
 On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

        Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

        To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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/moll

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

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 <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> 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 mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> 
 On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

        Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

        To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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>  
<https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>

 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

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  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  wrote:
>
>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> 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   *On
>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> 
>>
>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>
>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>
>> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 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   On Behalf Of 
>> Robert Andrews
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>>
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>
>> 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/

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the
  states have sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is
  above another (or below). The only time there is an issue is when
  there is some boundary-related issue that requires a higher
  authority (and Texas doesn't border any of the defendant states).
  So the "ruling" (not sure if that's the correct term is that Texas
  has no standing in this case. AKA pound sand.


bp

On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett
  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> wrote:
  
  

  Deep within this troll, the force runs.   
  
  
  
  bp

  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 
On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
                Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans
    are idiots

  
   
  
   
  bp
  
  
On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken
  Hohhof wrote:
  
  
Is there a mind blown emoji?
 
-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
                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
                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

 
 
bp

 
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 
 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Adam Moffett]

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 <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Deep within this troll, the force runs.


bp


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 
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?

  


-Original Message-

From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On 
Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com>

    Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

  


https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY  <https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>

  


-Original Message-

From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM

To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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>  
<https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>

  

  


bp



  


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  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> 
 On Behalf Of Robert Andrews

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM

    To:af@af.afmug.com  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

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



  


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>

   

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

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  wrote:

> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> 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   *On Behalf
> Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: AF   On Behalf Of 
> Chuck McCown via AF
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>
> To: af@af.afmug.com
>
> Cc: Chuck McCown  
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> 
>
>
>
> 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   On Behalf Of 
> Robert Andrews
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>
> To: af@af.afmug.com
>
> 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
>
> 
>
>
>
> 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
>
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> AF mailing list
>
> AF@af.afmug.com
>
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
Deep within this troll, the force runs.   



bp

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
   On Behalf Of Bill
  Prince
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
  

 

 
bp


  On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


  Is there a mind blown emoji?
   
  -Original Message-
  From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Cc: Chuck McCown 
  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
  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
  
   
   
  bp
  
   
  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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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
  
   
  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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
 
 
 
  
   
  --
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
   
   

  
  
  

  

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

I have seen them live.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 12, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:
> 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

My kids made me a fan.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 12, 2020, at 5:10 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  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> bp
> 
> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Cc: Chuck McCown 
> 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
> 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>
>  
>  
> bp
> 
>  
> 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> 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
> 
>  
> 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
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>  
>  
>  
>  
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>  
>  
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
Not just bizarre. Just completely banana pants.


bp

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
   On Behalf Of Bill
  Prince
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
  

 

 
bp


  On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


  Is there a mind blown emoji?
   
  -Original Message-
  From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
  Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Cc: Chuck McCown 
  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
  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
  
   
   
  bp
  
   
  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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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
  
   
  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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
 
 
 
  
   
  --
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
   
   

  
  
  

  

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Ken Hohhof]

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  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

 



 

bp


On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Is there a mind blown emoji?
 
-Original Message-
From: AF  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf 
Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Cc: Chuck McCown  <mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com> 
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:af@af.afmug.com> 
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

 
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  <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>  On Behalf 
Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
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

 
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> 
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 
 
 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  



bp

On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof
  wrote:


  Is there a mind blown emoji?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
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
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



bp


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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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


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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




  
  
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 




  

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Ken Hohhof]

Is there a mind blown emoji?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: Chuck McCown 
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
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>


bp


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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> 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
>> 
>>
>> 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
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

or maybe this one courtesy Harry Belafonte

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYkJ0kwNss 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYYkJ0kwNss>


bp


On 12/12/2020 2:30 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote:

https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY

-Original Message- From: Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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>


bp


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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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


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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com







--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Lol, "laughs in chinese, comrade" translated to traditional Chinese in
google translate translates back to "gay laugh" ... fitting for the
incoming administration.

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:37 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> 同志大笑
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:31 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:
>
>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bill Prince
>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> 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>
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
>> > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>> > To: af@af.afmug.com
>> > 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
>> >> 
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jaime Solorza]

Yep it does ..

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 3:01 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> Loyalty means a different thing to him.
>
> *From:* Jaime Solorza
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:55 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
> The One Term Impeached Lame Duck Loser is going bat shit crazy today
> ..might even fire Barr...
> He throws everyone under the bus...
> Viejo pendejo
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:27 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> They're probably like banana hammocks, just small
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:04 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>> 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
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

同志大笑


On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 4:31 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Prince
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> 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>
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
> > Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > 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
> >> 
> >>
> >> 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
> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY

-Original Message- 
From: Bill Prince

Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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>


bp


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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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


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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

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>



bp


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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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


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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Loyalty means a different thing to him.  

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:55 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

The One Term Impeached Lame Duck Loser is going bat shit crazy today ..might 
even fire Barr... 
He throws everyone under the bus...
Viejo pendejo 

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:27 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

  They're probably like banana hammocks, just small

  On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:04 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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
> 
> 
> 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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Epic

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:56 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> The One Term Impeached Lame Duck Loser is going bat shit crazy today
> ..might even fire Barr...
> He throws everyone under the bus...
> Viejo pendejo
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:27 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> They're probably like banana hammocks, just small
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:04 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>> 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
>>> > 
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jaime Solorza]

The One Term Impeached Lame Duck Loser is going bat shit crazy today
..might even fire Barr...
He throws everyone under the bus...
Viejo pendejo

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 1:27 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> They're probably like banana hammocks, just small
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:04 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>> 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
>> > 
>> >
>> > 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
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

They're probably like banana hammocks, just small

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 2:04 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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> 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
> > 
> >
> > 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
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Ken Hohhof]

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  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
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
> 
> 
> 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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert Andrews]

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


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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

  
  
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

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
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Robert]

He's about to get his own personal appearance in court.

On 12/11/20 8:16 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:

Please accept our apologies

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:19 PM Jaime Solorza > wrote:


All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Rotflmao, and let the games begin

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/12/11/house-democrat-calls-to-exclude-126-republicans-from-next-congress-for-supporting-texas-lawsuit/

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:45 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> The guy with the phat bling
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:34 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Who are the left of which you speak?  Do they walk among us?
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: A picture containing person, person Description automatically
>> generated]
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 11:23 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence the next statement in what I said
>>
>> There hasnt been any ruling, so there isnt any finality. There needs to
>> be finality. Scotus action today is just going to drag this thing out.
>> Until they do their job, hear the case, rule against the states, the
>> propensity for violence increases daily. And I'm not just talking about
>> secessionists.
>>
>> At least the next 2 years wont be anything like the left over the last
>> four still calling Clinton madame president and screaming at the sky. The
>> right will either pop off or move on. More likely to move on if the scotus
>> does their job and rules on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a real good forecast for starlink, the left lives funding a monopoly
>> they back. I'll bet scotus rules on that within 3 years, they wont claim
>> it's not in their wheelhouse
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:54 PM Chuck McCown via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Appeal to whom?  God?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
>>
>> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
>>
>> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
>>
>> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
>>
>> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
>>
>> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
>>
>> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is
>> in the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling
>> on the merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also
>> likely ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a
>> mechanism to appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the
>> 14th december , the 3rd, or the 20th of January.
>>
>>
>>
>> You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always
>> your jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the
>> next few days listening to them bicker.
>>
>> Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off
>> with a descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you
>> again, the hand of god will strike them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on
>> to the next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open
>> for endless stupidity.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
>> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
>> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>
>>
>>
>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
>> reality.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> bp
>>
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

The guy with the phat bling

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:34 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Who are the left of which you speak?  Do they walk among us?
>
>
>
> [image: A picture containing person, person Description automatically
> generated]
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2020 11:23 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>
>
>
> Hence the next statement in what I said
>
> There hasnt been any ruling, so there isnt any finality. There needs to be
> finality. Scotus action today is just going to drag this thing out. Until
> they do their job, hear the case, rule against the states, the propensity
> for violence increases daily. And I'm not just talking about secessionists.
>
> At least the next 2 years wont be anything like the left over the last
> four still calling Clinton madame president and screaming at the sky. The
> right will either pop off or move on. More likely to move on if the scotus
> does their job and rules on it.
>
>
>
> It's a real good forecast for starlink, the left lives funding a monopoly
> they back. I'll bet scotus rules on that within 3 years, they wont claim
> it's not in their wheelhouse
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:54 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:
>
> Appeal to whom?  God?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
>
> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
>
> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
>
> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
>
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
>
> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
>
> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
>
>
>
> I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is
> in the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling
> on the merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also
> likely ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a
> mechanism to appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the
> 14th december , the 3rd, or the 20th of January.
>
>
>
> You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always
> your jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the
> next few days listening to them bicker.
>
> Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off
> with a descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you
> again, the hand of god will strike them.
>
>
>
> Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to
> the next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for
> endless stupidity.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>
>
>
> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
> reality.
>
>
> --
>
> bp
>
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Ken Hohhof]

Who are the left of which you speak?  Do they walk among us?

 



 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 11:23 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

 

Hence the next statement in what I said

There hasnt been any ruling, so there isnt any finality. There needs to be 
finality. Scotus action today is just going to drag this thing out. Until they 
do their job, hear the case, rule against the states, the propensity for 
violence increases daily. And I'm not just talking about secessionists.

At least the next 2 years wont be anything like the left over the last four 
still calling Clinton madame president and screaming at the sky. The right will 
either pop off or move on. More likely to move on if the scotus does their job 
and rules on it.

 

It's a real good forecast for starlink, the left lives funding a monopoly they 
back. I'll bet scotus rules on that within 3 years, they wont claim it's not in 
their wheelhouse

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:54 PM Chuck McCown via AF mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > wrote:

Appeal to whom?  God?

Sent from my iPhone





On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a

bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original

jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ 

(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore

grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not

grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

 

I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is in 
the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling on the 
merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also likely 
ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a mechanism to 
appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the 14th december , the 
3rd, or the 20th of January.

 

You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always your 
jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the next few 
days listening to them bicker.

Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off with a 
descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you again, the 
hand of god will strike them.

 

Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to the 
next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for endless 
stupidity.

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah pbthhh" and 
sticking fingers in the air

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote:

If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I would 
have denied the case with prejudice.

 

Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face reality.




--

bp

part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

 

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > 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> 
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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Hence the next statement in what I said
There hasnt been any ruling, so there isnt any finality. There needs to be
finality. Scotus action today is just going to drag this thing out. Until
they do their job, hear the case, rule against the states, the propensity
for violence increases daily. And I'm not just talking about secessionists.
At least the next 2 years wont be anything like the left over the last four
still calling Clinton madame president and screaming at the sky. The right
will either pop off or move on. More likely to move on if the scotus does
their job and rules on it.

It's a real good forecast for starlink, the left lives funding a monopoly
they back. I'll bet scotus rules on that within 3 years, they wont claim
it's not in their wheelhouse

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 9:54 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> Appeal to whom?  God?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> 
> Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
>
> I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is
> in the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling
> on the merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also
> likely ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a
> mechanism to appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the
> 14th december , the 3rd, or the 20th of January.
>
> You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always
> your jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the
> next few days listening to them bicker.
> Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off
> with a descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you
> again, the hand of god will strike them.
>
> Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to
> the next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for
> endless stupidity.
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
>> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be),
>>> I would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>>
>>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> --
>>> bp
>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...

 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jaime Solorza]

Yes I am

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:31 PM Chuck McCown via AF  wrote:

> Glad you are having a good day Jaime.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 11, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
> >
> > 
> > --
> > AF mailing list
> > AF@af.afmug.com
> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Jaime Solorza]

Please accept our apologies

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 5:19 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Ken Hohhof]

Emma Peel?  Aka M Appeal.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 9:53 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Cc: Chuck McCown 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

 

Appeal to whom?  God?

Sent from my iPhone





On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a

bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original

jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ 

(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore

grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not

grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

 

I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is in 
the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling on the 
merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also likely 
ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a mechanism to 
appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the 14th december , the 
3rd, or the 20th of January.

 

You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always your 
jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the next few 
days listening to them bicker.

Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off with a 
descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you again, the 
hand of god will strike them.

 

Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to the 
next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for endless 
stupidity.

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah pbthhh" and 
sticking fingers in the air

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince mailto:part15...@gmail.com> > wrote:

If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I would 
have denied the case with prejudice.

 

Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face reality.




--

bp

part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

 

 

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > 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> 
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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Appeal to whom?  God?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2020, at 7:42 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ 
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
> 
> I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is in 
> the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling on 
> the merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also 
> likely ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a 
> mechanism to appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the 14th 
> december , the 3rd, or the 20th of January.
> 
> You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always your 
> jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the next 
> few days listening to them bicker.
> Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off with a 
> descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you again, the 
> hand of god will strike them.
> 
> Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to 
> the next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for 
> endless stupidity.
> 
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones  wrote:
>> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah pbthhh" 
>> and sticking fingers in the air
>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I 
>>> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>> 
>>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face 
>>> reality.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> bp
>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza  
 wrote:
 All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
 
 -- 
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>> -- 
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Dismissing with prejudice wont address any of the other multitude pending.
It also opens up the door, as noted by alito. The courts can't say it's not
their problem, when case law says otherwise. That's the angle they will
probably come back at. The court at some point is going to have to attack
the political consequense they're trying to avoid eventually, get it done
now rather than later, there is only so much synapse left in my texan
friend, and eventually I'm gonna need his advice on laying out DIN

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:45 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> That was my point. It was not quite forceful enough for my taste.
> Dismissing with prejudice makes the point more forceful without getting
> into schoolyard name calling.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 6:27 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
>> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be),
>>> I would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>>
>>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> --
>>> bp
>>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...

 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

That was my point. It was not quite forceful enough for my taste.
Dismissing with prejudice makes the point more forceful without getting
into schoolyard name calling.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 6:27 PM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
>> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>
>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
>> reality.
>>
>> --
>> bp
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

I'll break this down for bill and jaime to understand. The case itself is
in the purview of SCOTUS. By not hearing it (and issuing a negative ruling
on the merits, as the tone reflects) the issue would have been ended, also
likely ending the other pending cases. All theyve done now is created a
mechanism to appeal or refile, and refile, and refile. Irrelevant of the
14th december , the 3rd, or the 20th of January.

You have two choices when your kids are fighting (you're kids are always
your jurisdiction) you can tell the "I dont want to hear it" and spend the
next few days listening to them bicker.
Or you can have them tell you their gripes, then tell them to fuck off with
a descriptive reason why, with clarity that if it comes before you again,
the hand of god will strike them.

Ultimately both outcomes are the same (they get sidetracked and move on to
the next shiny object) only one is clear, and one leaves the door open for
endless stupidity.

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 8:26 PM Steve Jones  wrote:

> Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah
> pbthhh" and sticking fingers in the air
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
>> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>>
>> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
>> reality.
>>
>> --
>> bp
>> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Read the dissent, it's a lot less elementary school than "nyah nyah pbthhh"
and sticking fingers in the air

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 7:32 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
> would have denied the case with prejudice.
>
> Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
> reality.
>
> --
> bp
> part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Bill Prince]

If I was on the court (and to be clear, I am not, nor do I want to be), I
would have denied the case with prejudice.

Time for the followers of Trumpianity to find another church, and face
reality.

--
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com


On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Chuck McCown via AF]

Glad you are having a good day Jaime.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 11, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Jaime Solorza  wrote:
> 
> 
> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
> 
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots

[Steve Jones]

Rotflmao
PET


On Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 6:20 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com