• OT: Trivia, I wouldn't worry about Supreme Court judges

    From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 6 11:31:19 2022
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously
    hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other side's constituency will just have to cope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Doe on Fri May 6 14:12:05 2022
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other side's constituency will just have to cope.

    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is
    an expert in the field.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri May 6 16:13:27 2022
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:12:13 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other side's constituency will just have to cope.
    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is
    an expert in the field.

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is in direct violation of 18 USC 1507.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri May 6 19:47:46 2022
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:31 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:12:13 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to
    attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other
    side's constituency will just have to cope.
    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is an expert in the field.

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is in direct violation of 18 USC 1507.

    Flyguy is the kind of idiot who interprets the suggestion that society would be improved if a particular poster happened to end up dead as an active death threat. His reading comprehension - such as it is is - works a lot better at finding the kind of
    information he wants to sees in a post than it does at extracting the information that is actually there. It's not a virtue.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat May 7 23:46:32 2022
    No idea what this troll is talking about.

    It's obviously not talking about my post.

    It is bawling its eyes out over the fact our US Supreme Court will
    (apparently) let our states decide for themselves when abortion is not a
    crime against humanity.

    This cannibal leftist pretends to be "a libertarian" but it is nothing
    like a libertarian...


    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously
    hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to
    attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other
    side's constituency will just have to cope.

    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is
    an expert in the field.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 7 23:59:41 2022
    Flyguy wrote:

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical
    threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those
    same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is
    in direct violation of 18 USC 1507.

    Yep! Actually it appears worse than that for the woke crowd...

    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding
    the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any
    judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,
    pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United
    States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such
    judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or
    near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    The left, like the right, will see its leaders wax patriotic when push
    comes to shove.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 00:02:31 2022
    Trolling American issues gets this Australian troll's panties wet.

    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 00:25:30 2022
    IMO, it's a great logic puzzle...

    Our vice president is suggesting that women are losing their right "to make decisions about their own bodies".

    How so? Because the states instead of Washington DC might make such
    decisions?

    Because men shouldn't have a vote in such policy?

    Assuming such decisions should be made by centralized government, what makes centralized government better at making such decisions?

    Doesn't matter how many women judges and politicians there are, men will
    always run the show. Every law is enforced by brute force at the point of a
    gun by big strong men. Apparently the left wants those big strong men to be stupid as possible, that will help further their cause?

    So funny... (no LOL)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sat May 7 19:53:32 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 9:46:39 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously >> hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to >> attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret >> it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other >> side's constituency will just have to cope.

    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is an expert in the field.

    No idea what this troll is talking about.

    John Doe doesn't understand much.

    It's obviously not talking about my post.

    Bitrex and I both differ on that point.

    It is bawling its eyes out over the fact our US Supreme Court will (apparently) let our states decide for themselves when abortion is not a crime against humanity.

    Bizarre idea. He's merely pointing out that anybody stupid enough to even think about physically attacking a US Supreme Court Judge has to be as silly as John Doe.

    This cannibal leftist pretends to be "a libertarian" but it is nothing like a libertarian...

    Only John Doe could be stupid enough to think the Bitrex is either a " cannibal leftist" or pretends to be a libertarian. "Cannibal leftist" is a category that that John Doe seems to have invented and doesn't actually exist in the real world, but John
    Doe's grasp of reality is remarkably feeble.

    The proposition that abortion might be a "crime against humanity" is no less bizarre. In some jurisdictions it is regarded as crime, but an unborn fetus isn't actually a human being until it is breathing and eating on it's own. The religious right see it
    as a potential human being, and don't want to lose a potential convert, and feel that this gives them the right to ignore the wishes of the woman who is carrying the fetus. It's am interesting legal question, but not one the religious right wants to pay
    any attention to.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sat May 7 20:11:17 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:25:36 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    IMO, it's a great logic puzzle...

    Our vice president is suggesting that women are losing their right "to make decisions about their own bodies".

    How so? Because the states instead of Washington DC might make such decisions?

    No. The point about Roe versus Wade was that only the woman carrying the fetus had the right to make that decision. Neither the individual US states or the US Federal Government had that right. Both have claimed that right in the past, in much the same
    way as they claimed that it was correct to teat some human beings a chattel slaves, but there are legal opinions that say that ye shouldn't have,

    Because men shouldn't have a vote in such policy?

    They don't carry the fetus.

    Assuming such decisions should be made by centralized government, what makes centralized government better at making such decisions?

    The whole point is that the woman carrying the fetus is the only person who has the right to make that decision. Lawyers have differed on this point, but in practice making abortions illegal merely means the abortions that keep on taking place are
    somewhat riskier for the woman who need them, and it thus serves no useful purpose.

    Doesn't matter how many women judges and politicians there are, men will always run the show.

    Every ineffectual man likes to believe this.

    Every law is enforced by brute force at the point of a gun by big strong men.

    Or somewhat smaller, weaker women who can handle a gun equally effectively. Ineffectual creeps like John Doe prefer not to think about that.

    Apparently the left wants those big strong men to be stupid as possible, that will help further their cause?

    John Doe certainly seems to advocate ideas that suggest that he is remarkably stupid. Why he would expect the left to be equally stupid isn't immediately obvious.

    So funny... (no LOL)

    John Doe is so intellectually inept that he might be a lampoon of the more fatuous end of right-wing opinion, but if he were he'd be a clumsy exaggeration.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Suydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 04:01:45 2022
    Bill "Bozo" Sloman, the Australian troll, doesn't even know what a woman
    is...

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 03:58:16 2022
    The protesters were dispersed, like the law requires.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-08/abortion-rights-protest- targets-homes-of-kavanaugh-roberts

    "police ordered them to disperse"

    Supreme Court judges even have Secret Service protection. Government is dead serious about protecting them, whether we like it or not.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 04:00:52 2022
    The Australian troll doesn't even know what a woman is...

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill "Bozo" Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat May 7 21:28:49 2022
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:47:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:31 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:12:13 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously
    hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to
    attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other
    side's constituency will just have to cope.
    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is an expert in the field.

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is in direct violation of 18 USC 1507.
    Flyguy is the kind of idiot who interprets the suggestion that society would be improved if a particular poster happened to end up dead as an active death threat. His reading comprehension - such as it is is - works a lot better at finding the kind of
    information he wants to sees in a post than it does at extracting the information that is actually there. It's not a virtue.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, when fuckers like DecayedBrainMatter threaten me with death I don't "misinterpret" the threat. I know he is a fucking blowhard that hasn't made good on a threat since he told his mom he would hold his breath to death, but I am prepared
    for him nonetheless.

    BTW, you SHOULD read what you wrote because your English is fucking atrocious.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 8 04:15:45 2022
    Also from that article...

    "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to criticize
    the practice of protesting outside a justice's home..."I don't have an
    official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said.
    "We want it, of course, to be peaceful.""

    Given the cited statute, that is weird/na´ve. Such protests are
    obviously illegal. Psaki was incorrectly briefed.


    18 USC 1507...
    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding
    the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any
    judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,
    pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United
    States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such
    judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or
    near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to John Doe on Sat May 7 21:35:18 2022
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:15:52 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Also from that article...

    "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to criticize
    the practice of protesting outside a justice's home..."I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said.
    "We want it, of course, to be peaceful.""

    Given the cited statute, that is weird/naïve. Such protests are
    obviously illegal. Psaki was incorrectly briefed.


    18 USC 1507...
    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding
    the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any
    judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    Silly Psaki is just a mindless face of the morally bankrupt Dims, so don't expect any epiphany from that bitch. The Dims seem to get their rocks off by attempting to intimidate the Supremes. This strategy, in a word, is FUCKED, which means they are
    FUCKED, but they are too stupid to understand this.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 7 23:01:16 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:28:52 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:47:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:31 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:12:13 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously
    hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to
    attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other
    side's constituency will just have to cope.
    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is
    an expert in the field.

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is in direct violation of 18 USC 1507.

    Flyguy is the kind of idiot who interprets the suggestion that society would be improved if a particular poster happened to end up dead as an active death threat. His reading comprehension - such as it is is - works a lot better at finding the kind
    of information he wants to see in a post than it does at extracting the information that is actually there. It's not a virtue.


    Hey Sloman, when fuckers like DecayedBrainMatter threaten me with death I don't "misinterpret" the threat. I know he is a fucking blowhard that hasn't made good on a threat since he told his mom he would hold his breath to death, but I am prepared for
    him nonetheless.

    BTW, you SHOULD read what you wrote because your English is fucking atrocious.

    Flyguy has trouble parsing complex sentences. When Decadent Linux User Numero Uno spells out what would happen to Flyguy if Flyguy were silly enough to wave his concealed carry weapon at Decadent Linux User Numero Uno, that is a prediction of what would
    happen, conditional on Flyguy being that silly.

    It's not a death threat as such, more a prediction of the consequences of Flyguy being as silly in real life as he is in print.

    Flyguy has to simplify what he reads, so he misses the conditional character of the prediction. He did misinterpret the threat. If he can't understand a sentence it is because the English is atrocious, rather than exploiting more complex sentence
    structures than he can parse.

    He is obviously fond of over-simplication. Coping with anything but basic English is quite beyond him.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Sat May 7 23:14:00 2022
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:35:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:15:52 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Also from that article...

    "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to criticize the practice of protesting outside a justice's home..."I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said.
    "We want it, of course, to be peaceful.""

    Given the cited statute, that is weird/naïve. Such protests are
    obviously illegal. Psaki was incorrectly briefed.


    18 USC 1507...
    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    Since the Supreme Court seems to be in the business of interfering with, obstructing, and and impeding the administration of justice to women who need abortions, they probably shouldn't allowed near their own homes or any place that houses a court of
    United States.

    Silly Psaki is just a mindless face of the morally bankrupt Democrats, so don't expect any epiphany from that bitch. The Democrats seem to get their rocks off by attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices. This strategy, in a word, is FUCKED,
    which means they are FUCKED, but they are too stupid to understand this.

    Flyguy seem to think he is the mouth of the morally bankrupt Republican Party - otherwise the Donald Trump Admiration Society - which means that his strategy - which rather dignifies his silly ideas with a more pretentious title than they deserve - is
    completely doomed, but he is much too stupid to appreciate this.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 21:37:25 2022
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:01:21 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:28:52 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 7:47:50 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:31 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 11:12:13 AM UTC-7, bitrex wrote:
    On 5/6/2022 7:31 AM, John Doe wrote:
    If someone ain't woke, they will be if they attack a US Supreme Court
    judge. Americans who attack lowly federal district judges are zealously
    hunted down by the FBI.

    Maybe it's just media hype, but... If the woke crowd are stupid enough to
    attack a Supreme Court judge, they (and everybody they know) will regret
    it.

    That idea is just stupid. Like keyboard revolutionaries who think they
    have a chance at another Civil War. Whichever side is in power, the other
    side's constituency will just have to cope.
    Doe knows what he's talking about wrt keyboard revolutionaries, as he is
    an expert in the field.

    We have idiots on SED that blatantly make death and other physical threats against other posters, but definitely not John Doe. I hope those same idiots don't make similar threats against federal judges as that is in direct violation of 18 USC
    1507.

    Flyguy is the kind of idiot who interprets the suggestion that society would be improved if a particular poster happened to end up dead as an active death threat. His reading comprehension - such as it is is - works a lot better at finding the kind
    of information he wants to see in a post than it does at extracting the information that is actually there. It's not a virtue.


    Hey Sloman, when fuckers like DecayedBrainMatter threaten me with death I don't "misinterpret" the threat. I know he is a fucking blowhard that hasn't made good on a threat since he told his mom he would hold his breath to death, but I am prepared
    for him nonetheless.

    BTW, you SHOULD read what you wrote because your English is fucking atrocious.
    Flyguy has trouble parsing complex sentences. When Decadent Linux User Numero Uno spells out what would happen to Flyguy if Flyguy were silly enough to wave his concealed carry weapon at Decadent Linux User Numero Uno, that is a prediction of what
    would happen, conditional on Flyguy being that silly.

    It's not a death threat as such, more a prediction of the consequences of Flyguy being as silly in real life as he is in print.

    Flyguy has to simplify what he reads, so he misses the conditional character of the prediction. He did misinterpret the threat. If he can't understand a sentence it is because the English is atrocious, rather than exploiting more complex sentence
    structures than he can parse.

    He is obviously fond of over-simplication. Coping with anything but basic English is quite beyond him.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    Hey SNIPPERMAN, you can't even spell your OWN NAME at times, let alone make a coherent argument. But what do you expect from an idiot who thinks that FIREBOMBING and NUKING his OWN COUNTRY is a good idea?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed May 11 21:40:13 2022
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:14:04 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:35:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:15:52 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Also from that article...

    "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to criticize the practice of protesting outside a justice's home..."I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said. "We want it, of course, to be peaceful.""

    Given the cited statute, that is weird/naïve. Such protests are obviously illegal. Psaki was incorrectly briefed.


    18 USC 1507...
    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or
    near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
    Since the Supreme Court seems to be in the business of interfering with, obstructing, and and impeding the administration of justice to women who need abortions, they probably shouldn't allowed near their own homes or any place that houses a court of
    United States.

    Silly Psaki is just a mindless face of the morally bankrupt Democrats, so don't expect any epiphany from that bitch. The Democrats seem to get their rocks off by attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices. This strategy, in a word, is FUCKED,
    which means they are FUCKED, but they are too stupid to understand this.

    Flyguy seem to think he is the mouth of the morally bankrupt Republican Party - otherwise the Donald Trump Admiration Society - which means that his strategy - which rather dignifies his silly ideas with a more pretentious title than they deserve - is
    completely doomed, but he is much too stupid to appreciate this.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    SNIPPERMAN is disillusioned with an institution that had been in the hip pocket of the libtards for years, so he is OK with trying to intimidate them by any means possible, even if it is a DIRECT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW! Of course, SNIPPERMAN is
    completely ignorant of this - just wait for his reply to see!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Wed May 11 22:54:04 2022
    On Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 2:40:17 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:14:04 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 2:35:22 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
    On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:15:52 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Also from that article...

    "White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Thursday declined to criticize
    the practice of protesting outside a justice's home..."I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest," she said. "We want it, of course, to be peaceful.""

    Given the cited statute, that is weird/naïve. Such protests are obviously illegal. Psaki was incorrectly briefed.


    18 USC 1507...
    "Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding
    the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or
    near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

    Since the Supreme Court seems to be in the business of interfering with, obstructing, and and impeding the administration of justice to women who need abortions, they probably shouldn't allowed near their own homes or any place that houses a court of
    United States.

    Silly Psaki is just a mindless face of the morally bankrupt Democrats, so don't expect any epiphany from that bitch. The Democrats seem to get their rocks off by attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices. This strategy, in a word, is
    FUCKED, which means they are FUCKED, but they are too stupid to understand this.

    Flyguy seem to think he is the mouth of the morally bankrupt Republican Party - otherwise the Donald Trump Admiration Society - which means that his strategy - which rather dignifies his silly ideas with a more pretentious title than they deserve -
    is completely doomed, but he is much too stupid to appreciate this.

    Sloman is disillusioned with an institution that had been in the hip pocket of the libtards for years, so he is OK with trying to intimidate them by any means possible, even if it is a DIRECT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW!

    Only Flyguy could be stupid enough to interpret what I posted that way. I certainly didn't indicate any approval of any attempt to intimidate any Supreme Court judge.

    Of course, Sloman is completely ignorant of this - just wait for his reply to see!

    I really don't know much about Flyguy's delusions, and I'd be happy to know even less, but he does keep ventilating them here. If the Supreme Court had been in the pockets of the libtards for years one would have expected them to have been less
    enthusiastic about schemes that let billionaires buy political influence with gigantic contributions to the election expenses of the billionaires' favourite political parties.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)