Fidonet Portal






From: Steve Wolf (1:218/700)
To: All
Date: Tue, 13.10.20 15:29
Hearings?
Is anyone watching the Supreme Court Judge hearings or am I the only dope
watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this woman.
They're really carried away with this Rode vs Wade crap.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

From: Nick Andre (1:229/426)
To: All
Date: Tue, 13.10.20 19:06
Re: Hearings?
On 13 Oct 20 13:29:43, Steve Wolf said the following to All:

SW> Is anyone watching the Supreme Court Judge hearings or am I the only dope
SW> watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this wo
SW> They're really carried away with this Rode vs Wade crap.

She seems like a smart cookie...

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

From: Aaron Thomas (1:229/426)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 11:07
Re: Hearings?
SW> watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this wo

They're looking for any kind of justification they can find to vote against
her. Their idiot supporters are watching, and they want to see obstruction. In
the end, it's just a partisan political choice, and for the Senate minority,
they already know how they're voting despite how any silly questions get
answered.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

From: Steve Wolf (1:218/700)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 10:39
Re: Hearings?
Re: Re: Hearings?
By: Aaron Thomas to Steve Wolf on Wed Oct 14 2020 09:07 am

> > watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this
> > wo

> They're looking for any kind of justification they can find to vote
> against her. Their idiot supporters are watching, and they want to see
> obstruction. In the end, it's just a partisan political choice, and for
> the Senate minority, they already know how they're voting despite how any
> silly questions get answered.

Their asking Hypothetical questions. Asking "How would you vote if?" Are you
going to kill our babies? Are you going to take my right to kill my baby away?
It's nonsense. They want to know if she supports Trump. This is just an attack
on her character and has nothing to do if she would be a good judge. I'll say
this... I think she's making these male politicians look like little boys. ;-)

... Have you ever asked a question you weren't supposed to ask?
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 16:41
Re: Hearings?
>> watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this wo

> They're looking for any kind of justification they can find to vote against
> her. Their idiot supporters are watching, and they want to see obstruction.
> In the end, it's just a partisan political choice, and for the Senate
> minority, they already know how they're voting despite how any silly
> questions get answered.

The're not looking for justification, they already have that.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 16:48
Re: Hearings?
> Their asking Hypothetical questions. Asking "How would you vote if?" Are you
> going to kill our babies? Are you going to take my right to kill my baby
> away? It's nonsense. They want to know if she supports Trump. This is just an
> attack on her character and has nothing to do if she would be a good judge.

Nothing hypothetical about it. Killing babies? Let's not get emotional.

> I'll say this... I think she's making these male politicians look like
> little boys. ;-)

She is a smart lady, and she would be a good judge if she could be impartial.
She wants to implement the United States of Catholicism, next we'll see sharia
law. A packed court could throw out Roe v. Wade and the ACA. Currently there is
nothing to replace either, and that's only the beginning.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Aaron Thomas (1:229/426)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 22:02
Re: Hearings?
AI> The're not looking for justification, they already have that.

They're fine in asking some questions but it's unfair for them to ask her
about her policy views; she's obviously a Republican, so hypothetically, the
answers to their hypothetical questions should be inferred.

If they had any reason not to confirm her, it would be out in the open. The
whole senate, on both sides, has turned it into a cultural phenomenon. Their
role in the USSC is to either vote & confirm, or play around and waste time.
Must be a fun job! It would be rare for a SC nominee to be rejected.

A Democratic senate vetoed one of GHW Bush's nominees because the guy was
heterosexual and drank alcohol. Back then these Senate dems were anti-lots of
stuff, but now that they defend criminals, they are ganging up on an
adorable lady and intuition tells us that this little blondie is pro-life and
if you ask her expecting a different answer, you're playing the senate
confirmation game well.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Wed, 14.10.20 19:51
Re: Hearings?
>> The're not looking for justification, they already have that.

> They're fine in asking some questions but it's unfair for them to ask her
> about her policy views; she's obviously a Republican, so hypothetically, the
> answers to their hypothetical questions should be inferred.

This is the same process as always, there is nothing different about it.

When the senate installs a justice to decide issues of law they want to know
how that person interprets the laws they write.

The senate will not (I hope) install a justice that decides cases of law in a
way that will be outside of what the senates laws set out to do in the first
place.

> If they had any reason not to confirm her, it would be out in the open. The
> whole senate, on both sides, has turned it into a cultural phenomenon. Their
> role in the USSC is to either vote & confirm, or play around and waste time.
> Must be a fun job! It would be rare for a SC nominee to be rejected.

There is a mountain of reason not to confirm Barrett. We don't even need to
question her, we can see it in her writings/doings.

> A Democratic senate vetoed one of GHW Bush's nominees because the guy was
> heterosexual and drank alcohol. Back then these Senate dems were anti-lots of
> stuff, but now that they defend criminals, they are ganging up on an
> adorable lady and intuition tells us that this little blondie is pro-life and
> if you ask her expecting a different answer, you're playing the senate
> confirmation game well.

Her pro-lifeness is OK, her being a tool to do gods work is another.

We do not want or need the state deciding for us what faith or morals we should
live by. Women don't want or need the state to decide for them if they should
have an abortion.

People should be free to live their lives as they choose.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Aaron Thomas (1:229/426)
To: All
Date: Thu, 15.10.20 12:50
Re: Hearings?
AI> We do not want or need the state deciding for us what faith or morals we
AI> should live by. Women don't want or need the state to decide for them if th
AI> should have an abortion.

I haven't been watching the hearing coverage, but it looks like senate
Democrats have made a huge impression on people.

So this Barret lady is some kind of religious dictator? More like Hitler than
Trump? lol

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Thu, 15.10.20 16:00
Re: Hearings?
> I haven't been watching the hearing coverage, but it looks like senate
> Democrats have made a huge impression on people.

It's senate republicans like Mitch who have made an impression. That is not
new, it's just more of the same.

> So this Barret lady is some kind of religious dictator? More like Hitler than
> Trump? lol

No, she's not a dictator. She has expressed views that lawyers can do gods
work. Do you want America to be ruled by law or dogma?

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Ron Lauzon (1:275/89)
To: All
Date: Thu, 15.10.20 11:27
Re: Hearings?
-=> Nick Andre wrote to Steve Wolf <=-

SW> Is anyone watching the Supreme Court Judge hearings or am I the only dope
SW> watching? I don't understand how the stupid ass Dems won't vote for this
wo
SW> They're really carried away with this Rode vs Wade crap.

NA> She seems like a smart cookie...

Which, I think, answers Steve's question about why the Dems won't vote for her.


... I am in total control, but don't tell my wife.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

From: Ron Lauzon (1:275/89)
To: All
Date: Thu, 15.10.20 11:28
Re: Hearings?
-=> Alan Ianson wrote to Steve Wolf <=-

AI> Because the democrats want to maintain some form of impartiality on the
AI> supreme court.

That has to be the most naive thing I've ever heard.

The Dems tried to pack the court in FDR's day.
They've been pushing Leftie judges there for decades.

The **last** thing that Lefties want it "impartiality" on the court. They
want the Supreme Court to be yet another way to get their unconstitutional
ideas pushed through.


... First, they tax incomes; now they're taxing my patience.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Thu, 15.10.20 17:41
Re: Hearings?
> -=> Alan Ianson wrote to Steve Wolf <=-

>> Because the democrats want to maintain some form of impartiality on the
>> supreme court.

> That has to be the most naive thing I've ever heard.

Impatiality of the supreme court is naive? That's the most naive thing I have
ever heard.

> The Dems tried to pack the court in FDR's day.

It's republicans packing the court today, right in front of your eyes.

> They've been pushing Leftie judges there for decades.

Uhuh.

> The **last** thing that Lefties want it "impartiality" on the court. They
> want the Supreme Court to be yet another way to get their unconstitutional
> ideas pushed through.

Forget what the lefties or righties want. Do you want an impartial supreme
court?

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Ron Lauzon (1:275/89)
To: All
Date: Sat, 17.10.20 14:48
Re: Hearings?
-=> Alan Ianson wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

>> Because the democrats want to maintain some form of impartiality on the
>> supreme court.

> That has to be the most naive thing I've ever heard.

AI> Impatiality of the supreme court is naive? That's the most naive thing
AI> I have ever heard.

It's amazing that Lefties can only seem to hear what they want to hear.

> The Dems tried to pack the court in FDR's day.

AI> It's republicans packing the court today, right in front of your eyes.

Then you do not understand what "court packing" is.

But it normal for lefties to re-define things when they want them to mean
something else.

AI> Forget what the lefties or righties want. Do you want an impartial
AI> supreme court?

What I want is a Supreme Court that does their job: Uphold the Constitution.
Not legislate from the bench - as has been
happening for a while now.

... Junk - stuff we throw away. Stuff - junk we keep.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Sat, 17.10.20 15:51
Re: Hearings?
>> It's republicans packing the court today, right in front of your eyes.

> Then you do not understand what "court packing" is.

I do undertand what you are saying and what you mean by court packing.

> But it normal for lefties to re-define things when they want them to mean
> something else.

The court packing began when Mitch McConell wouldn't give Obama's pick
(Garland) a hearing 8 months before an election.

Then he gives Trump's nominee (Barrett) a hearing 50 days before an election.
That is hypocracy, and court packing.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Aaron Thomas (1:229/426)
To: All
Date: Sun, 18.10.20 00:15
Re: Hearings?
AI> Then he gives Trump's nominee (Barrett) a hearing 50 days before an electio
AI> That is hypocracy, and court packing.

But Trump's court packing is in accordance with current law, and if Trump
didn't load it up now then he would be a disgrace to his voters. Only a scum
like Biden would load it up later by increasing the quantity of justices. I
don't think he really has the balls to do it though, he's just being
encouraged by his care workers to act like a tough-guy. In reality, and Joe
knows it, he would have hell to pay if he made an executive order to raise the
# of justices. By not denouncing such a horrible, anti-Democratic idea, just
to sound tough to bunch of idiots, Joe is thereby promoting the abuse of
presidential power. People who appreciate that crap are some sick enablers.

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

From: Ron Lauzon (1:275/89)
To: All
Date: Mon, 19.10.20 15:39
Re: Hearings?
-=> Aaron Thomas wrote to Alan Ianson <=-

AT> But Trump's court packing is in accordance with current law,

Trump isn't "court packing". "Court packing" is increasing the number of
justices.

This attempted change of the meaning of the term is just another Leftie tactic.
"If the current definition doesn't meet
our Narrative, change it so that it does."


... A man's incomplete until married; then he's finished!
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Mon, 19.10.20 15:52
Re: Hearings?
>> But Trump's court packing is in accordance with current law,

> Trump isn't "court packing". "Court packing" is increasing the number of
> justices.

Donald Trump is "packing" the court with "conservatives" and "catholics". He is
doing this for three (immediate) reasons.

1) Upcoming election litigation
2) To kill Roe v. Wade
3> To kill the ACA

He has said this publicly.

> This attempted change of the meaning of the term is just another Leftie
> tactic "If the current definition doesn't meet our Narrative, change it so
> that it does."

Court "packing" is being done now. Perhaps the "lefties" will have to "unpack"
the courts later.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

From: Ron Lauzon (1:275/89)
To: All
Date: Wed, 21.10.20 12:12
Re: Hearings?
-=> Alan Ianson wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

AI> Donald Trump is "packing" the court with "conservatives" and
AI> "catholics". He is doing this for three (immediate) reasons.

That's not "Court Packing" and the Dems did that same thing for many years.
So complaining about what Trump is doing is hypocritical - which seems to
be the norm for Lefties.

AI> 1) Upcoming election litigation
AI> 2) To kill Roe v. Wade
3> To kill the ACA

AI> He has said this publicly.

No, he hasn't. Although in your delusional Leftie mind I can see why you
think that.

1) Upcoming election litigation is only being pushed by the Dems because they
know that they are going to lose big time.
2) The only way Roe vs. Wade will be killed is because it's not constutitional.
Of course, not having the court "packed" with leftie judges who think that the
Constitutional doesn't exist may cause that to happen.
3) The ACA is already dead and most people are happy about that. The
"Affordable" Care Act was moronic and didn't make health care affordable to
anyone. The people that it was supposed to help ended up paying premiums
on health plans with such high deductables that they could never take
advantage of the health plan. But that's normal for Leftie policies: they
always have the opposite impact that they claim that they will have.

AI> Court "packing" is being done now. Perhaps the "lefties" will have to
AI> "unpack" the courts later.

The Democrat party is finished. They've ripped the mask off and let everyone
see what they actually are: totaltarians. Only the most useless and stupid
people still want to vote for them.


... If it's obvious, it's obviously wrong.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
* Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS - bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)

From: Alan Ianson (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Wed, 21.10.20 16:52
Re: Hearings?
>> He has said this publicly.

> No, he hasn't. Although in your delusional Leftie mind I can see why you
> think that.

Sure he has. Maybe you don't know or care but that is what he has said (even at
his rallies) and that is what he is doing.

> 1) Upcoming election litigation is only being pushed by the Dems because they
> know that they are going to lose big time.

It doesn't look that way at this point.

>2) The only way Roe vs. Wade will be killed is because it's not constutitional
>Of course, not having the court "packed" with leftie judges who think that the
> Constitutional doesn't exist may cause that to happen.

Packing your court with justices who have said Roe v. Wade should be overturned
is one way to overturn it. The poeple don't want Roe v. Wade overturned. This
will be a problem.

> 3) The ACA is already dead and most people are happy about that.

The ACA is still law and a large number of Americans depend on it. Without it a
lot of people will not get the care they need.

> The "Affordable" Care Act was moronic and didn't make health care affordable
> to anyone. The people that it was supposed to help ended up paying premiums
> on health plans with such high deductables that they could never take
> advantage of the health plan.

I agree. The ACA should be improved not killed. Wealthy Americans don't need
the ACA. It is designed for the average working person/family.

Trump has not presented anything better although he has been saying for months
that a new plan is weeks away. Two weeks before the election there is still no
sign of it. He has still not released his taxes although he keeps saying he is
going to do that and it would confirm or deny the story that he has paid only
$750 in 2016 and 2017 in federal income taxes and none at all in 10 out of the
last 15 years.

This is what we have to look at two weeks before the election.

> But that's normal for Leftie policies: they always have the opposite impact
> that they claim that they will have.

You are impacted now by DT policy. It's not leftie at all.

>> Court "packing" is being done now. Perhaps the "lefties" will have to
>> "unpack" the courts later.

> The Democrat party is finished.

Really. Smile

> They've ripped the mask off and let everyone see what they actually are:
> totaltarians. Only the most useless and stupid people still want to vote
> for them.

If you talk to folks about policy without the politics I think you'll find your
country is a lot more progressive that it seems.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)

ABOUT

This forum contains echomail areas hosted on Nightmare BBS You can browse local echomail areas, italian fidonet areas and a selection of international fidonet areas, reading messages posted by users in Nightmare BBS or even other BBSs all over the world. You can find file areas too (functional to fidonet technology). You can browse echomail areas and download files with no registration, but if you want to write messages in echomail areas, or use fidonet netmail (private messages with fidomet technology), you have to register. Only a minimal set of data is required, functional to echomail and netmail usage (name, password, email); a registration and login with facebook is provided too, to allow easy registration. If you won't follow rules (each echomail areas has its own, regularly posted in the echomail), your account may be suspended;

CONTACT