• War Powers Vote

    From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to All on Sunday, January 12, 2020 20:42:02
    Do we favor the War Powers Vote?

    Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our military
    bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since day 1?

    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day? They could destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait for the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.

    Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to ask the squad if it's ok.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to aaron thomas on Monday, January 13, 2020 08:00:48
    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?

    You mean you'd find it upsetting if nations in the Middle East would reclaim their territories which are illegally occupied by the USA ?

    Do not forget, at the core of all of this is a gigantic set of lies of the Bush-Minor admistration to strike a sovereign nation costing the lives of over 100,000 civilians and disrupting at least 2 countries ...

    The USA has no business being there in the first place.

    \%/@rd

    --- D'Bridge 4
    * Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 03:05:56
    Hello Ward,

    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?

    You mean you'd find it upsetting if nations in the Middle East would reclaim
    their territories which are illegally occupied by the USA ?

    The Golan Heights are illegally occupied by Israel.
    When, if ever, will those lands be returned to Syria?

    In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two
    parts. One part for Jewish Palestinians, one part for Arab
    Palestinians. Both sides rejected the UN partition. Now what we
    have is a Jewish state that is more of a theocracy than anything
    approaching a democracy. A Jewish theocracy ruled by a man who
    has been indicted (but not yet convicted).

    The status of Jerusalem was left alone by the UN. To be
    decided later by the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

    US President Donald J. Trump decided to act on his own to
    recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He also decided
    to act on his own to recognize the Golan Heights as being part
    of the state of Israel. He also decided to act on his own by
    declaring that Palestinian Arabs should leave the West Bank
    and Gaza Strip as they can relocate to Jordan and Egypt.

    IOW, the President of the United States of America has publicly
    stated that Palestinian Arabs have no right to live on their own
    land. Unless they are Jewish, in which case they would be able
    to claim anything and everything they want.

    The Iraqi parliament has passed a resolution asking for the
    removal of US troops from Iraq. The prime minister has yet to
    act on that request.

    Iran tried to make the US stay by holding on to 52 diplomats back
    in 1979, but finally relented once Jimmy Carter left the White House.

    The House of Saud continues to sell us oil for cheap, at least for
    as long as it gets to quiet journalists and reporters. Not sure what
    would happen if they ever run out of oil. Probably have to find a
    new market for sand.

    Do not forget, at the core of all of this is a gigantic set of lies of the
    Bush-Minor admistration to strike a sovereign nation costing the lives of over 100,000 civilians and disrupting at least 2 countries ...

    Who was president of Nicaragua when Ronald Reagan was POTUS?
    Who is president of Nicaragua today?

    Sometimes things come around full circle.

    The USA has no business being there in the first place.

    Had it not been for the USA, Europe would be one giant Germany.

    --Lee

    --
    We're Great In Bed

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to aaron thomas on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 03:07:45
    Hello Aaron,

    Do we favor the War Powers Vote?

    Only the Congress has the right to declare war.

    Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our military
    bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since day 1?

    We have the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world
    to do that for us. Which is why the Congress makes sure to allocate
    plenty enough funds for the military to do its job.

    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?

    The CIC would be courts-martialed and summarily executed.

    They could destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait
    for the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.

    The Military Code of Justice would have done its work long before
    then.

    Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to ask the
    squad if it's ok.

    Do you really think they would care?

    --Lee

    --
    We're Great In Bed

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to aaron thomas on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 06:45:15
    On 12 Jan 2020, aaron thomas said the following...

    Do we favor the War Powers Vote?

    Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our military bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since day 1?

    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day? They could destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait for
    the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.

    Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to ask the squad if it's ok.


    I Believe there is only one commander and chief.
    As such, this fact should be sitting on the front of the minds of the Nations leaders of the world. (to keep anyone stupid enough to try)

    With the President's authority being watered down, then the same fact
    will be more of I'll keep it in the back of my mind, or perhaps not at all.
    (of which is in the category of I might try something stupid especially if i know I can get away with it, American's will be squabbing, and debating why create a unnecessary Achilles heel, from which to attack.

    There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another of many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.
    They will tell you and refer to the articles of impeachment...
    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.

    The reason: The President is abusing his power and overstepping his authority. (well that was the only thing that they could make fit and they had to jam
    that pretty tightly to look somewhat normal.)

    After all Bribery, crimes, collusion, couldn't of been they tried as they already tried those and they have failed. So that was the best that they could come up with... The whole things stinks, bottom-line, the left hates him more then they love their country.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Ward Dossche on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:00:42
    The USA has no business being there in the first place.

    Maybe you're right, but troops are not there by choice, and they shouldn't be attacked by a 3rd party and then not expect consequences.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:13:24
    Only the Congress has the right to declare war.

    But your president isn't declaring war by ordering a military strike. He can order up to 60 days of military action without Congress' approval, but so far there's no indication that he's going to do that.

    Do you really think they would care?

    You're right, the squad wouldn't care much about American interests, but probably the rest of Congress would have something to say about it.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Gregory Deyss on Tuesday, January 14, 2020 21:26:46
    There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another of many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.

    I get that. I don't get what they expect to achieve with all this though.

    With the impeachment, my first thought was that they want to disparage his reputation, enough so some liberal can defeat him in the election. But these are people with law degrees, so I'll assume there's something more to it than that - because the impeachment isn't making Trump supporters budge.

    And with the War Powers Act, my first thought is that they trust Iran more
    than they trust Trump - but that's my simple mind again - they're surely up
    to something bigger, I just can't figure it out yet. It's likely to turn up
    in a disgusting, surprising way later down the road.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 05:58:25
    Hello Greg,

    at> Do we favor the War Powers Vote?
    at>
    at> Do we trust Congress to take action next time Iran attacks our
    military
    at> bases, or do we trust the guy who's been defending US troops since
    day 1?
    at>
    at> What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day? They could
    at> destroy another military base every day of the week while we wait for
    at> the ok from Nasty Nancy & Pencilneck Schiff to defend ourselves.
    at>
    at> Before we prevent the deaths of American soldiers, we first have to
    ask
    at> the squad if it's ok.


    I Believe there is only one commander and chief.
    As such, this fact should be sitting on the front of the minds of the
    Nations
    leaders of the world. (to keep anyone stupid enough to try)

    Commander-in-Chief is a title, or (military) rank. Not an office.
    If the C-in-C steps out of line, s/he can be courts-martialed. If
    found guilty (in due accordance to the Code of Military Justice),
    then s/he is convicted and sentence can be carried out.

    With the President's authority being watered down, then the same fact
    will be more of I'll keep it in the back of my mind, or perhaps not at all.
    (of which is in the category of I might try something stupid especially if
    i know I can get away with it, American's will be squabbing, and debating
    why create a unnecessary Achilles heel, from which to attack.

    Article I, Section 8. Only the Congress has authority to declare war.

    There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another of
    many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.

    No president is above the law.

    They will tell you and refer to the articles of impeachment...

    Donald J. Trump has been impeached for life.

    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be >restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.

    Article I, Section 8 remains part of the US Constitution.
    If you would like a change to be made, I suggest trying to
    amend the US Constitution. Otherwise, only the Congress
    will continue to have the authority to declare war ...

    The reason: The President is abusing his power and overstepping his
    authority.

    The president does have a duty and an obligation to inform the
    Congress what he does (or plans to do) in matters of national security. Especially when it concerns engaging the US military in acts of war.

    (well that was the only thing that they could make fit and they had to jam
    that pretty tightly to look somewhat normal.)

    The House still has time to include such acts before Speaker Pelosi
    hands over articles of impeachment ...

    After all Bribery, crimes, collusion, couldn't of been they tried as they
    already tried those and they have failed.

    Conviction in the Senate does not require having to prove a case
    beyond reasonable doubt.

    So that was the best that they could come up with...

    Donald J. Trump has been impeached for life.
    That is a fact. Not even the Senate can do a thing
    to change that basic fact. Donald J. Trump has to
    wear the "I" word on his head for the rest of his
    natural life. And then, after he is dead and gone,
    the "I" word will remain on his gravestone, where
    the stain will be engraved forever.

    The whole things stinks, bottom-line, the left hates him more
    then they love their country.

    He can always get the last laugh by having his remains
    cremated and then placed in the left's favorite shrine -
    on Liberty Island, near the Statue of Liberty.

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to aaron thomas on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 05:58:52
    Hello Aaron,

    Only the Congress has the right to declare war.

    But your president isn't declaring war by ordering a military strike.

    Of course not. No president has, or has ever had, that authority.

    Only the Congress has the authority to declare war.
    Article I, Section 8.

    The Orange One has a big mouth, but carries a very small stick.
    In his case, a putter better used on the golf green.

    He can order up to 60 days of military action without Congress' approval,
    but so far there's no indication that he's going to do that.

    The president has a duty and an obligation to inform the Congress
    of whatever actions he decides to take take. Note what powers the
    Congress has under the US Constitution -

    Article I, Section 8.

    "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make
    Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support
    Armies ..."

    Do you really think they would care?

    You're right, the squad wouldn't care much about American interests, but
    probably the rest of Congress would have something to say about it.

    All members of Congress (including "the squad") have taken the
    oath of office, and are thus sworn to act in the best interests
    of the American people -

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
    domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
    that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
    or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
    the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

    --Lee

    --
    Our Nuts, Your Mouth

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 01:26:00
    On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.

    There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
    --- it is in the Constitution.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:56:03, 15 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to aaron thomas on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 07:16:57
    On 14 Jan 2020, aaron thomas said the following...

    There is only one reason why this is coming up now, it is yet another many efforts to stop him because the left does not like him.

    I get that. I don't get what they expect to achieve with all this though.

    Their intention is too damage, deflate, de-legitimatize the President.


    With the impeachment, my first thought was that they want to disparage
    his reputation, enough so some liberal can defeat him in the election.
    But these are people with law degrees, so I'll assume there's something more to it than that - because the impeachment isn't making Trump supporters budge.

    Impeachment of this President was put forth to limit, eliminate the
    President, it is clear now that neither of these objectives will be anything close to being reached. - or not at all.

    This is what frustrates and makes the left seethe in hate.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Gregory Deyss on Wednesday, January 15, 2020 14:18:53
    Impeachment of this President was put forth to limit, eliminate the President, it is clear now that neither of these objectives will be anything close to being reached. - or not at all.

    Indeed! They better do a good job at their impeachment attempt, because
    there's no other way they can prevent Trump's November victory.

    I'm still trying to figure out how Joe Biden can be considered a "political rival" way back in 2016. If Trump were to do what they say he did today, that would be a little different. They're trying to pick up crumbs and turn it
    into a ham sandwich.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, January 16, 2020 01:49:21
    Hello Dale,

    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be >GD>restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.

    There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
    --- it is in the Constitution.

    The Constitution allows him to do whatever he wants.
    According to "The Chosen One" himself.
    You think I am making this up?
    Nobody can make this stuff up.
    And I mean nobody -

    "I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever
    I want as president." ~Donald J. Trump, July 23, 2019

    See there? It's true. He really did say that. Live, in front
    of all those television cameras. Including both CNN and MSNBC, not
    just FoxNews.

    As you know, Article II spells out the president's oath of office,
    and also specifies that he "shall take care that the laws be
    faithfully executed." So we know Trump is right on all counts.

    Except for one thing.

    Article II also states the House can impeach the president for
    certain offenses and the Senate can hold trial, convict and remove
    him from office.

    What are the grounds as to why the House chose to impeach Trump?
    His failure to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

    Wow! Violating his oath of office is an impeachable offense!
    No witnesses even necessary to convict! Off with his head!

    --Lee

    --
    Erections, That's Our Game

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, January 16, 2020 07:20:57
    On 15 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...

    On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.

    There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
    --- it is in the Constitution.

    Your bias is showing..

    I do not recall the Republicans saying anything to the same effect, to what
    the Democrats are rambling on about how Trump failed to notify congress.

    Telling the Democrats of the plans;
    Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
    - Leaking to the Media.
    - Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their previous
    statements that have been very much Un-American.
    - Twisting the truth or politicizing.

    The Obama Administration went after Bin Laden, of which was much more of a dangerous mission, you did not hear the Republicans whining about how they were never informed. Obama launched over 500 drone strikes. There was no opposition to these missions either by the Republicans.

    It is clear that this War Powers vote has more to do with the fact they are trying to limit him or intentionally trying to make him look bad, or they are attempting to create a situation that casts a shadow over his ability and accomplishments, to make themselves look better.

    All of this is because they are power hungry and are still very much annoyed that they lost in 2016.

    This is what Children do when they lash out at their parents, stamp their
    feet in place and get red faced and have a tantrum.
    It's coming in 2020 the political spanking of the Democrats.
    Now go to your room.. LOL

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Friday, January 17, 2020 16:43:10
    Hello Greg,

    DS> -=> spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-
    DS> GD> They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there
    should be
    DS> GD> restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.
    DS>
    DS> There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
    DS> --- it is in the Constitution.

    Your bias is showing..

    That's what happens when one bleeds red, white and blue.

    I do not recall the Republicans saying anything to the same effect, to what
    the Democrats are rambling on about how Trump failed to notify congress.

    "I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want
    as president." ~Donald J. Trump, July 23, 2019

    Telling the Democrats of the plans;
    Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
    when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
    - Leaking to the Media.
    - Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
    previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
    - Twisting the truth or politicizing.

    No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
    to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters concerning national security and acts of war. The American people
    have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do,
    and why.

    The Obama Administration went after Bin Laden, of which was much more of a
    dangerous mission, you did not hear the Republicans whining about how they were never informed. Obama launched over 500 drone strikes. There was no opposition to these missions either by the Republicans.

    After the events of 9/11, GWB stood by two firemen in NYC and
    told Americans to hug their children, and go shopping. Then he
    told the world he would bring those who attacked us to justice.
    He ordered troops into Afghanistan, and three weeks later the
    Taliban was removed from power, with Osama bin Laden hold up with
    no place to go. Then GWB did a complete turnaround, and decided
    to give up on finding the the terrorist who made it all happen,
    thus allowing him to escape to Pakistan.

    With another presidential election coming up, GWB decided he
    needed another war to win a second term. A bigger war that would
    be just as easy to win. That's where Iraq came in. He blamed
    the Iraqi dictator for 9/11, which Iraq had nothing to do with,
    and then started a fucking war. Osama bin Laden remained free
    and at large, planning and conducting more terrorist attacks.

    A real war hero by the name of John Kerry then got swift-boated
    by a group of lying bastards and GWB went on to "win" a second term
    in office. Some say this election was stolen, just as the previous
    election had been. Only instead of Florida, it was Ohio.

    Anyway, to the delight of almost every American, GWB finally left
    office on January 20, 2009. And then the best president America
    has ever had (Barack Hussein Obama) took office, for eight great
    years.

    And it is true. Barack Hussein Obama brought Osama bin Laden
    to justice. According to some, fed his remains to the fishes in
    the sea.

    It is clear that this War Powers vote has more to do with the fact they are
    trying to limit him or intentionally trying to make him look bad, or they
    are attempting to create a situation that casts a shadow over his ability
    and accomplishments, to make themselves look better.

    There are only two people on the face of this planet who have
    the ability to start a nuclear war on their own. One of them is
    Kim Jong-Un, dictator of North Korea. The other is Donald Trump, dictator-wannabe of the United States. Imagine that. Not even President-for-Life Xi of China has that power. Nor does future President-for-Life Vladimir Putin of Russia.

    All of this is because they are power hungry and are still very much annoyed
    that they lost in 2016.

    Power hungry? Vladimir Putin had his government resign so he
    could personally rewrite his country's constitution, making himself president-for-life. I am sure Donald Trump would love to do the
    same thing here. But unfortunately for Putin's poodle, we the people
    refuse to let him.

    This is what Children do when they lash out at their parents, stamp their
    feet in place and get red faced and have a tantrum.

    Look who is standing trial for his crimes.

    It's coming in 2020 the political spanking of the Democrats.
    Now go to your room.. LOL

    Both Pence and Trump are going down the toilet. Not even sure
    if either of them will be on the ballot this coming November.
    Not that it matters. The Democrats will have their dream ticket
    and all will be well. :)

    --Lee

    --
    Every Bottom Needs A Top

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Friday, January 17, 2020 19:00:15

    Telling the Democrats of the plans;
    Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
    when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
    - Leaking to the Media.
    - Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
    previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
    - Twisting the truth or politicizing.

    and inform the enemy of our plans in the process.
    so we can broadcast when we are pulling out so that can move in the very next day, things are being handled smarter now.

    No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
    to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters concerning national security and acts of war. The American people
    have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do,
    and why.

    You keep saying that no president is above the law.
    Ok so tell me what laws the president has broken.

    Look who is standing trial for his crimes.
    This is what the democrats did, baseless because once again there were no
    laws broken by the President.

    Both Pence and Trump are going down the toilet. Not even sure
    if either of them will be on the ballot this coming November.
    Not that it matters. The Democrats will have their dream ticket
    and all will be well. :)

    Then they will destroyed on National Television by Donald Trump.
    Stay Tuned.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From TIM RICHARDSON@1:123/140 to WARD DOSSCHE on Friday, January 17, 2020 16:00:00
    On 01-13-20, WARD DOSSCHE said to AARON THOMAS:

    A couple of things.....


    What if Iran were to strike a new US military base every day?

    You mean you'd find it upsetting if nations in the Middle East would WD>reclaim their territories which are illegally occupied by the USA ?


    First of all.....don't you live in Belgium?


    If memory serves....didn't we (the US of A) save Belgium's sorry little ass from the Germans....twice in less than thirty years? First the Kaiser then the Nazis?


    Do not forget, at the core of all of this is a gigantic set of lies of the WD>Bush-Minor admistration to strike a sovereign nation costing the lives of WD>over 100,000 civilians and disrupting at least 2 countries ...


    I'm glad you brought that up.


    Since right after the attack on 9/11/01 it was `supposedly' common knowledge that Iraq had `weapons of mass destruction'.


    When none were actually found, only a few obsolete technology\types that weren't even operational.....I began to look back through the `sources' of all this `Irag's weapons of mass destruction' stuff.


    And I began to strongly suspect that the whole thing was pumped up by certain operatives in various federal agencies to embarass a republican president (GW Bush).


    Although Hussein had used various chemical weapons in the past, these
    `powerful weapons of mass destruction' didn't exist. It was a sham!


    For once (maybe the only time in his long career) Saddam Hussein was telling the tuth; he DIDN'T have any `weapons of mass destruction'!


    I didn't coin the title `deep state'. But I've strongly suspected for many
    many years that there existed in the federal government (and in most state governments), a group of people who have been ther a long time....have great experience with `running' things....and don't actually do what politicians `want' so much as they do what they think politicians `need'!


    Even when I was a young man I noticed how a person would get elected on a promise to get a certain something `done'....only what they tried to change
    had to (mysteriously) go through endless `stages' or ....`these things take time'...delay after delay....then the next election a different party comes into office....and nothing happened all along! No change was ever made.


    And that goes in local, county, state, federal....you name it.


    The `deep state' runs things on many levels. Trump's only got 4 years (8 if he's re-elected)...


    He ain't gonna change anything. Maby a few things here and there....but
    overall the `deep state will be there long after Trump and all the good he did to Make America Great Again are repealed, reversed, and forgotten.


    The USA has no business being there in the first place.


    We had a vested interest in `being there'!


    The sorry-ass deomcrats tied us up so tight with regulations we only had that part of the world as a source of oil.


    The sorry-ass, pig-shit-eating Islamics were murdering Americans for many years, and finally pulled of an attack that murdered around 4000 people in
    four stages on the same day!


    Actually, that part of the world is damn lucky the right person wasn't president then. It should have been handled far differently.


    ---
    *Durango b301 #PE*
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)
  • From TIM RICHARDSON@1:123/140 to GREGORY DEYSS on Friday, January 17, 2020 16:54:00
    On 01-15-20, DALE SHIPP said to GREGORY DEYSS:

    On 01-14-20 06:45, Gregory Deyss <=-

    spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: War Powers Vote <=-


    They want us to believe that they are basis as to why there should be restrictions placed on the Presidents ability to make war.


    There are existing restrictions on the Presidents ability to make war
    --- it is in the Constitution.


    This is just plain funny coming from one of these `lefties'!


    Donald Trump gave approval for a strike that took out one of the worst pieces of Islamic pig shit in the Middle East!


    Suddenly we have democrats shitting their diapers over it! Pelosi almost couldn't keep her false teeth in place while condemning it!


    Pelosi was all peaches and cream when Hussein Obama was doing it...even
    opining that Hussein didn't even have to announce it when and American suspected of terrorism is killed in a drone strike!


    Now she's having trouble with her `uppers' when Trump takes out about the biggest Iranian terrorist commander they had!


    But lets look up a few things Hussein Obama did......


    2012..a US drone strike took out a senior al Qaida terrorist abu al ya ya
    Libi.


    Democrats?


    `killing libi huge blow to al Qaida....president Obama bold and swift
    decision to strike...etc etc...yada yada...'! ....Schumer


    Faruq Qatani al Qaida Nov 2016; air strike


    Democrats? .....crickets!


    Aboo muhammad Adnani...Islamic State...August 2016...drone strike.


    Democrats? ....crickets!


    Hafeez Saeed Kahn...Islamic State ....drone strike July 2016.


    Democrats? ....crickets!


    Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour....Taliban...drone strike May 2016.


    Democrats? .....crickets!


    Rahman Mustafa Qaduli...March 24 2016 Died during special ops attempt to capture him.


    Democrats? .....crickets!


    And on and on and on.....drone strikes or air strikes either ordered by or approved by Hussein Obama.


    No outrage...no wild rush to change the `war powers act'.....no bitching about `not being informed beforehand'......Either high praise or just ....crickets!



    ---
    *Durango b301 #PE*
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Sunday, January 19, 2020 00:27:46
    Hello Greg,

    LL> >Telling the Democrats of the plans;
    LL> >Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will be lost
    LL> > when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
    LL> >- Leaking to the Media.
    LL> >- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by their
    LL> > previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
    LL> >- Twisting the truth or politicizing.

    and inform the enemy of our plans in the process.

    Inform the Congress and the American people of what he is up to.
    Big difference, as no president has the right to rule by decree.

    so we can broadcast when we are pulling out so that can move in the very
    next day, things are being handled smarter now.

    The world is being made much less safe due to the actions of this
    president. This cannot be allowed to continue, as doing so would
    result in no more world for anybody.

    No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
    to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters >LL>concerning national security and acts of war. The American people
    have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do, >LL>and why.

    You keep saying that no president is above the law.
    Ok so tell me what laws the president has broken.

    Okay. You asked for it -

    https://tinyurl.com/t64c5tp


    The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
    That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
    Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?

    Look who is standing trial for his crimes.

    This is what the democrats did, baseless because once again there were no
    laws broken by the President.

    According to the non-partisan GAO, the president did in fact
    do what he did. And what he did was very much against the law.

    Both Pence and Trump are going down the toilet. Not even sure
    if either of them will be on the ballot this coming November.
    Not that it matters. The Democrats will have their dream ticket
    and all will be well. :)

    Then they will destroyed on National Television by Donald Trump.
    Stay Tuned.

    Watching the election results come in is going to be fun.
    I expect it to be a short contest, with the incumbent refusing
    to concede, claiming the election was "rigged". Of course, we
    will all be laughing in our seats, even though it is not really
    funny. But hey. We will forgive him for his antics on election
    night, as Inauguration Day is going to be special. :)

    --Lee

    --
    Everybody Loves Our Buns

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Richard Falken@1:103/705 to Lee Lofaso on Monday, January 20, 2020 11:30:30
    Re: War Powers Vote
    By: Lee Lofaso to Ward Dossche on Tue Jan 14 2020 03:05 am

    The House of Saud continues to sell us oil for cheap, at least for
    as long as it gets to quiet journalists and reporters. Not sure what
    would happen if they ever run out of oil. Probably have to find a
    new market for sand.

    Make no mistake, they are already planning for peak oil. They are not stupid.

    You can bet that if oil shortage becomes a problem, they will set even more heliostates and turn to the foreigner funds they have been buying all these years.
    --- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Wednesday, January 22, 2020 07:05:13
    On 19 Jan 2020, Lee Lofaso said the following...

    Hello Greg,

    LL> >Telling the Democrats of the plans;
    LL> >Information will be leaked to the media, then American lives will lost
    LL> > when none were lost before. They can not be trusted, more many reasons.
    LL> >- Leaking to the Media.
    LL> >- Democratic Muslims in American Government, who have shown by th
    LL> > previous statements that have been very much Un-American.
    LL> >- Twisting the truth or politicizing.

    and inform the enemy of our plans in the process.

    Inform the Congress and the American people of what he is up to.
    Big difference, as no president has the right to rule by decree.

    so we can broadcast when we are pulling out so that can move in the very
    next day, things are being handled smarter now.

    The world is being made much less safe due to the actions of this president. This cannot be allowed to continue, as doing so would
    result in no more world for anybody.

    No president is above the law. He has a duty and an obligation
    to inform the Congress of his plans, especially in regards to matters >LL>concerning national security and acts of war. The American people >LL>have a right to know what their president is doing, or intends to do, >LL>and why.

    You keep saying that no president is above the law.
    Ok so tell me what laws the president has broken.

    Okay. You asked for it -

    https://tinyurl.com/t64c5tp


    The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
    That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
    Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?

    Non-partisan? Not quite a dem is behind this, finding a footnote from 1974,
    and then using it to build a case for impeachment. That's quite a stretch. What about the document from 1787 called the U.S. Constitution that says the President was within legal right following this Supreme Law of the land.
    There is no other greater the governs the law of the U.S.

    President was within his constitutional authority with what occurred with Ukraine. There is also the transcript that indicates EVERYTHING that was
    said, that is one move that the dems did not count on, and they have been trying to find NEW ways to make their hurt feelings morph into laws broken,
    but once again there were no laws broken, just a difference in policy
    dispute. Again to built a case on impeachment on this is very weak, and now they will fail and they will be watched so closely that they will be less sufficient than they were before. Jolly Good Show, should of listened to me before and saved a bit of face, now they have none.

    Truth is this impeachment will be over soon, when it is over the President will be acquitted.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, January 23, 2020 01:46:00
    On 01-22-20 07:05, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War Powers Vote <=-

    The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.
    That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
    Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?

    Non-partisan? Not quite a dem is behind this, finding a footnote from 1974, and then using it to build a case for impeachment. That's quite a

    It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.

    stretch. What about the document from 1787 called the U.S.
    Constitution that says the President was within legal right following
    this Supreme Law of the land. There is no other greater the governs the law of the U.S.

    The Constitution does not say that the President can do whatever he or
    she wants. It set up three co-equal branches of government. Congress
    passes the laws, the President and the Executive branch execute those
    laws, and the Judicial passes judgement.

    President was within his constitutional authority with what occurred
    with Ukraine.

    Wrong -- still.

    There is also the transcript that indicates EVERYTHING
    that was said, that is one move that the dems did not count on, and

    True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence
    that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.

    they have been trying to find NEW ways to make their hurt feelings
    morph into laws broken, but once again there were no laws broken, just

    I can count at least four laws broken. Extortion, violation of the
    impoundment control act, violation of federal campaign laws and
    obstruction of congress.

    a difference in policy dispute. Again to built a case on impeachment

    Policy -- The Democrats want to protect the USA national security by
    aiding Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump wants to allow Russia to
    do whatever it wants, anywhere.

    Truth is this impeachment will be over soon, when it is
    over the President will
    be acquitted.

    In that you are probably correct. But perhaps enough Senators will wake
    up and follow their conscience to at least have a fair trial, and
    perhaps the American people will come to realize how corrupt and
    self-serving Trump really is.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:56:42, 23 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, January 23, 2020 09:22:26
    In that you are probably correct. But perhaps enough Senators will wake up and follow their conscience to at least have a fair trial, and

    Or maybe the Democrats will lay off the coffee and try some xanax?

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Friday, January 24, 2020 07:25:43
    On 23 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...

    It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.

    What you're missing is that GAO was from a legislative body, which does not have the same teeth; nor the authority against the executive branch, therefore it might as well be nothing more then footnote, and dim memory.

    True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence
    that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.

    Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment say.
    Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will result w/ removal of the President.

    These articles are laughable...
    Abuse of Power

    Obstruction of Congress
    Neither will stick, due to the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

    What this is really about is a policy difference.
    (both of these so called articles are said to exist because what the Democrats believe took place on the phone call.) if that is true then why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected. with the likes of Rashida Tlaib on Trump: 'Impeach the motherf---er' on 01/04/2019 creating a constitutional crisis
    where there is none.

    Policy -- The Democrats want to protect the USA national security by aiding Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump wants to allow Russia to
    do whatever it wants, anywhere.

    President Trump sent the Ukrainians defensive weapons, where Obama sent them blankets and pillows.

    Where was the concern with the Obama administration with the protection of Ukraine then, it did not exist.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From TIM RICHARDSON@1:123/140 to GREGORY DEYSS on Friday, January 24, 2020 21:54:00
    On 01-23-20, DALE SHIPP said to GREGORY DEYSS:

    On 01-22-20 07:05, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: War Powers Vote <=-


    The non-partisan GAO says Donald J. Trump broke the law.


    It isn't a bureau or bureaucrat that decides if a law was broken. Its the `courts' who decide that.


    That is good enough for me. And for all other law-abiding
    Americans, regardless of party affiliation. How about you?


    No doubt there are easily led people who follow partisan bureaucrat `pronouncements' of such things....but thats what `courts' are there to
    decide, not some leftie bureaucrat.


    Non-partisan? Not quite a dem is behind this, finding a footnote from
    1974, and then using it to build a case for impeachment. That's quite a


    It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.


    They don't even recall the word "alleged"! For lefties it becomes a `fact'
    just because it was `alleged'.


    stretch. What about the document from 1787 called the U.S.
    Constitution that says the President was within legal right following
    this Supreme Law of the land. There is no other greater the governs the
    law of the U.S.


    The Constitution does not say that the President can do whatever he or DS>she wants.


    (snip!!!)


    This has been taken out of context so often since Trump said that the
    democrats will have it entrenched in stone!


    He was making no such claim as to what he's allowed to do according to the Constitution! He was refering to whether or not he could fire Mueller.


    He had been asked if he could or was going to fire him and he answered `I can do whatever I want to.'


    The democrats all know that. They just like to present it as Trump defying the Constitution....yada yada...rings better to the `lemmings' who voted them in back in their home district. Plays good in the press....


    There's a thing a leftie babe here in Fido many years ago used to say; `A lie will be half-way around the world before the truth can get it's pants on.'


    The democrats prove that true almost daily.


    President was within his constitutional authority with what occurred
    with Ukraine.


    Wrong -- still.


    There is also the transcript that indicates EVERYTHING
    that was said, that is one move that the dems did not count on, and


    True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence DS>that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.


    As you can see lefties are so wrapped up in their hatred of Trump, so bent
    over Trump defeating Hillary Clinton, they've become delusional!


    There are three things that have been around since the dawn of Mankind;


    Dumbness


    Ignorance


    Stupidity



    `Dumbness' is a condition that is not the fault of anyone. I don't think it's even genetic. Dumb is no fault of the individual who is inflicted with it.
    They can be taught with patience and persistent repetition, to be self-reliant to a large enough degree to do nicely in life.


    `Ignorance' is something that can be countered with `eduction'. You can `educate' someone out of their `ignorance' and help them to develope their intellect to a point where they can educate themselves into knowledge.


    `Stupidity' is forever! There is no cure, no method of changing someones' stupidity. Its like someone sticking their finger in a live empty light socket and getting a heavy shock! Then...licking their finger and sticking it in to see if it happens again! And doing that over and over again...each time expecting a different result!


    `Stupidity' is an incurable condition.


    Large numbers of democrats are inflicted with it.


    Sometimes large numbers of stupid people manage to gravitate together and act in concert with each others' stupidness.


    A case in point is; the democrats.


    Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff would almost be funny like `Moe, Curly and Larry' until you remember these three `stooges' are running things in the US House of Representatives!


    So....what does it say about the people who voted them in!


    I wonder what the IQ median is in Maxine Waters's district! Or the attention span of those who keep voting for her!






    ---
    *Durango b301 #PE*
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, January 25, 2020 02:06:00
    On 01-24-20 07:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-

    It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.

    What you're missing is that GAO was from a legislative body, which
    does not have the same teeth; nor the authority against the executive branch, therefore it might as well be nothing more then footnote, and
    dim memory.

    It is an independent body of the government, tasked with the job of
    determining violations of the law by government officials, and with the expertise to do so accurately. What they said is not a "footnote", it
    is an informed opinion. It is also worth mentioning that at least two
    OMB officials resigned rather than being caught up in such illegal
    activity and that when the person in charge refused to sign off on it,
    he was replaced with a political appointee who would do what ever Trump
    wanted -- illegal or not.

    True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing evidence
    that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did.

    Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment say.
    Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
    result w/ removal of the
    President.

    I have previously outlined four laws that were broken by the acts
    referred to in the articles of impeachment. Try reading them with understanding.

    (both of these so called articles are said to exist because what the Democrats believe took place on the phone call.)

    No belief needed -- it is a proven fact and Trump presented the evidence
    for all to see.

    if that is true then
    why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.

    You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until
    several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment investigations did not begin until some time after the information about
    the phone call became known.

    with the
    likes of Rashida Tlaib on Trump: 'Impeach the motherf---er' on
    01/04/2019 creating a constitutional crisis where there is none.

    One impassioned congress person does not institute an impeachment
    proceeding.

    Policy -- The Democrats want to protect the USA national security by aiding Ukraine in its war with Russia. Trump wants to allow Russia to
    do whatever it wants, anywhere.

    President Trump sent the Ukrainians defensive weapons, where Obama
    sent them blankets and pillows.

    President Trump refused to send the defensive weapons which had been
    authorized by Congress and that the Ukraine needed until after he got
    caught with his extortion. President Obama sent whatever aid Congress approved. You are just echoing the Fox News spin and diversion from the relevant facts.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:23:21, 25 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, January 25, 2020 00:26:18
    Where was the concern with the Obama administration with the protection
    of Ukraine then, it did not exist.

    I don't have all the facts in this case, but is it possible that Biden could
    be the actual reason why Russia was able to take Crimea? All because he
    wanted some job for little cokehead Hunter? :) It would certainly be his biggest gaffe yet! But of course, Obamafans will forgive him for it.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Ron Lauzon@1:275/89 to TIM RICHARDSON on Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:28:00
    TIM RICHARDSON wrote to GREGORY DEYSS <=-

    There are three things that have been around since the dawn of Mankind; Dumbness
    Ignorance
    Stupidity

    The two most common elements in the Universe at Hydrogen and Stupidity, and I think that Stupidity is beating out Hydrogen by a long shot.


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    * Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)
  • From Ron Lauzon@1:275/89 to Dale Shipp on Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:32:00
    Dale Shipp wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-

    if that is true then
    why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.

    You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment investigations did not begin until some time after the information
    about the phone call became known.

    Actually, you are totally wrong.

    The Dems were looking for something to impeach him on since before Trump took office. We have them on record saying just that.

    So instead of someone seeing the possibility of a crime and then investigating, we have the Dems investigating looking for something.

    Our rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Dems have ignored our laws for quite some time now and are now making it very clear that they want to be a power unto themselves - damn the laws.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    * Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Ron Lauzon on Monday, January 27, 2020 01:39:00
    On 01-26-20 12:32, Ron Lauzon <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-


    Dale Shipp wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-

    if that is true then
    why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.

    You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment investigations did not begin until some time after the information
    about the phone call became known.

    Actually, you are totally wrong.

    Really? So tell me just when the House took up official impeachment
    hearings if it was not after the report of the phone call?

    The Dems were looking for something to impeach him on since before
    Trump took office. We have them on record saying just that.

    *Some* dems said that -- but nothing official was done until after the
    phone call became known.

    So instead of someone seeing the possibility of a crime and
    then investigating,
    we have the Dems investigating looking for something.

    The phone call was a possible crime ( and evidence has born out that it
    was). That is when the investigation began that led to impeachment.
    The Democrats did not look for it, it came to them.

    Our rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    Fair enough -- and that is what the trial in the Senate is all about.

    The Dems have ignored our laws for quite some time
    now and are now making it very clear that they want to be a power unto themselves - damn the laws.

    Really -- what laws have the Democrats ignored? What laws have Trump
    ignored.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:44:31, 27 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Ron Lauzon on Monday, January 27, 2020 21:16:55
    Hello Ron,

    if that is true then
    why is it that other Democrats have indicated that impeachment >GD>proceedings began days after Donald J. Trump was elected.

    You are totally wrong. Impeachment proceedings did not begin until >DS>several months ago when the Speaker authorized them. Impeachment >DS>investigations did not begin until some time after the information >DS>about the phone call became known.

    Actually, you are totally wrong.

    Previous attempts to impeach the president were unsuccessful.

    The Dems were looking for something to impeach him on since before Trump
    took office. We have them on record saying just that.

    He never would have been impeached had he not taken the oath of office.
    Not sure it would have been constitutional to allow Mike Pence to be
    sworn in as president had Trump wimped out. But not to worry. The
    new Congress had already been sworn in, and Speaker Ryan was there
    to make sure everything worked out okay.

    So instead of someone seeing the possibility of a crime and then
    investigating, we have the Dems investigating looking for something.

    With Speaker Ryan (a Republican from Wisconsin) in charge of the
    House, how in blazes were Democrats going to succeed in impeaching
    the president? Republicans ruled both houses of Congress, and the
    White House. All the power was in the hands of Republicans.

    Our rule of law is that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt.

    Rule of law? There was none for the first two years of the Trump
    presidency. He had the powers of a dictator, with no check. All the
    Democrats could do was rant and rave. Nothing more.

    Then came the Congressional elections. Democrats won a majority
    in the House. And Nancy Pelosi was then elected Speaker. For the
    first time in the Trump presidency, a real check was put in place.

    And now Donald J. Trump has been impeached. Impeached forever.
    A permanent stain on not just his presidency, but his person.

    The Rule of law? Do you honestly think the Republican majority
    in the Senate gives a flying f*ck about the rule of law? What we
    have today is a sham trial. Not a real trial as one would expect
    with any degree of fairness. Rather than "proven guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt" all those law-abiding Republican enablers of
    Donald J. Trump are now saying he is guilty as sin but not of
    impeachable offenses. As if treason, bribery, and high crimes
    and misdemeanors (however defined) are not impeachable offenses.

    The Rule of Law. A nice thought, but wishful thinking when it
    comes to trial by the Senate to convict/remove a president from
    office.

    The US Constitution gives the Senate "sole responsibility" to
    conduct the trial. On its own terms/rules, whatever those terms/rules
    might be.

    The Dems have ignored our laws for quite some time now and are now making it
    very clear that they want to be a power unto themselves - damn the laws.

    The Senate rules for the trial are whatever they want them to be.
    In this case, the Republican majority, which holds the levers.

    Republicans have a majority in the Senate. They can subpoena
    the Bidens even without having to put their beloved president on
    trial. Oh, that's right. They needed the House to impeach the
    MF'er first.

    --Lee

    --
    Get Her Wet Here

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 02:30:38
    With Speaker Ryan (a Republican from Wisconsin) in charge of the
    House, how in blazes were Democrats going to succeed in impeaching

    Ryan had a chip on his shoulder. He wouldn't mind seeing Trump and/or all the other Republicans go down. He abandoned us. But had Democrats started their "undo 2016" antics while he was still around, maybe he'd be president today.

    And now Donald J. Trump has been impeached. Impeached forever.
    A permanent stain on not just his presidency, but his person.

    It's no more offensive than the Russian witch-hunt. He's got thick skin; been ridiculed his whole adult life by the media. Garbage doesn't phase him. He's still using his power and influence to make the USA stronger than it's been
    in recent decades. It's not racism, sexism, or ethnocentrism that makes
    people love him, it's his drive and lack of laziness.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From Ron Lauzon@1:275/89 to Dale Shipp on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 18:20:00
    Dale Shipp wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

    *Some* dems said that -- but nothing official was done until after the phone call became known.

    No. Nearly ALL Dems said that since the beginning of Trump's presidency. "Official" or not, they were looking for a reason.

    The phone call was a possible crime ( and evidence has born out that it was). That is when the investigation began that led to impeachment.
    The Democrats did not look for it, it came to them.

    The official transcript of the call says otherwise. The Dems have nothing but hearsay.

    Fair enough -- and that is what the trial in the Senate is all about.

    Until the Senate throws the case out for lack of evidence. Then the Dems will find something else to blame and complain about.

    Really -- what laws have the Democrats ignored?

    Really? Have you been living under a rock?


    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    * Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)
  • From Ron Lauzon@1:275/89 to Lee Lofaso on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 18:32:00
    Lee Lofaso wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

    Rule of law? There was none for the first two years of the Trump presidency. He had the powers of a dictator, with no check. All the Democrats could do was rant and rave. Nothing more.

    *Laugh* You've really drunk the Left-wing cool-aid.

    "Dictator"? Everything Trump has done as President has been legal. Only the Left says otherwise - even though Osama...er.. Obama did many of the same things, without complaint from the Dems.

    All I hear from you is "Trump isn't acting the way that we like, so he's evil.", and "Trump won't cede power to the Left-wing minority, so he's doing illegal things."

    And now Donald J. Trump has been impeached. Impeached forever.
    A permanent stain on not just his presidency, but his person.

    *Laugh* This is one of the Leftie tactics that no longer work.

    For ages, the Left have been using accusations as a lever to get people to do things. "Now be good, or we'll accuse you of something bad. It doesn't make any difference whether or not you actually did it because just the accusation will ruin you." Well, thanks to the MeToo movement and others, that no longer works.

    The Rule of law? Do you honestly think the Republican majority
    in the Senate gives a flying f*ck about the rule of law?

    Yes, I do. But I know that the Dems don't. They haven't for a long time now.

    What we have today is a sham trial.

    Which would make a nice addition to the sham impeachment.

    The Rule of Law. A nice thought, but wishful thinking when it
    comes to trial by the Senate to convict/remove a president from
    office.

    Yes, The Rule Of Law. Not Rule of Accusation. Prove it or shut up. But the Dems can't prove something that isn't true and they are going out of the minds.

    The US Constitution gives the Senate "sole responsibility" to
    conduct the trial. On its own terms/rules, whatever those terms/rules might be.

    Yup. It's called "Checks and Balances". It's a really nice system for preventing one group of people (like the Left) from seizing power.

    The Senate rules for the trial are whatever they want them to be.

    And the House rules for the impeachment are whatever they wanted them to be. So?

    Republicans have a majority in the Senate. They can subpoena
    the Bidens even without having to put their beloved president on
    trial. Oh, that's right. They needed the House to impeach the
    MF'er first.

    Which is why the Dems are going crazy now. They need to keep the Bidens off the witness stand.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    * Origin: Diamond Mine Online BBS bbs.dmine.net:24 (1:275/89)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Ron Lauzon on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 02:39:04
    On 01-28-20 18:20, Ron Lauzon <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-


    Dale Shipp wrote to Ron Lauzon <=-

    *Some* dems said that -- but nothing official was done until after the phone call became known.

    No. Nearly ALL Dems said that since the beginning of Trump's
    presidency. "Official" or not, they were looking for a reason.

    Totally wrong.

    The phone call was a possible crime ( and evidence has born out that it was). That is when the investigation began that led to impeachment.
    The Democrats did not look for it, it came to them.

    The official transcript of the call says otherwise. The Dems have
    nothing but hearsay.

    Nope -- the transcript lays it out pretty clearly for all who are
    willing to read the words. Plus the testimony before the impeachment
    inquiry committee included people who were there when the call was made
    plus others who were direct witnesses to the acts around what the call
    was about.

    It is not all hearsay. That is the line that Trump and FOX news would
    like you to believe.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:11:58, 29 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 19:25:46
    On 25 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...

    On 01-24-20 07:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-

    It was not a "footnote" it was and is a law. And Trump violated it.

    What you're missing is that GAO was from a legislative body, which does not have the same teeth; nor the authority against the executive branch, therefore it might as well be nothing more then footnote, and dim memory.

    It is an independent body of the government, tasked with the job of determining violations of the law by government officials, and with the expertise to do so accurately. What they said is not a "footnote", it
    is an informed opinion. It is also worth mentioning that at least two
    OMB officials resigned rather than being caught up in such illegal activity and that when the person in charge refused to sign off on it,
    he was replaced with a political appointee who would do what ever Trump wanted -- illegal or not.

    I have been watching the events unfold at the Senate by the House Managers
    as well as the Defense for the President and not once have I heard anyone
    talk about this independent body of the government. You know why because it
    is irrelevant and nothing more then a ruse to try to smear the President.


    DS> DS> True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing
    evidence DS> DS> that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what he did. DS>
    Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment say. Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
    result w/ removal of the
    President.

    I have previously outlined four laws that were broken by the acts
    referred to in the articles of impeachment. Try reading them with understanding.

    Again you may outline all you wish, that does not change the FACT that
    what he is accessed with is a crime, because it is not a crime.
    Not even remotely.

    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment does not meet Constitutional standards.

    Game Over!

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, January 30, 2020 01:40:02
    On 01-29-20 19:25, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-

    It is an independent body of the government, tasked with the job of determining violations of the law by government officials, and with the expertise to do so accurately. What they said is not a "footnote", it
    is an informed opinion. It is also worth mentioning that at least two
    OMB officials resigned rather than being caught up in such illegal activity and that when the person in charge refused to sign off on it,
    he was replaced with a political appointee who would do what ever Trump wanted -- illegal or not.

    I have been watching the events unfold at the Senate by the House
    Managers as well as the Defense for the President and not once have I heard anyone talk about this independent body of the government. You
    know why because it is irrelevant and nothing more then a ruse to try
    to smear the President.

    It is not irrelevant, nor a ruse. It was an informed statement. You
    have not heard about it in the trial (yet) because the report did not
    come out before the articles of impeachment were sent to the Senate.
    And also, it is obvious that Fox News would not report it to you since
    it is damaging to Trump.

    Again you may outline all you wish, that does not change the FACT that what he is accessed with is a crime, because it is not a crime.
    Not even remotely.

    Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and
    constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated multiple
    laws -- and I told you what they were.


    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment
    does not meet Constitutional standards.

    According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he wants to
    do and it won't be a crime. You believe that???? Also what Dershowitz
    is saying now is in direct contradiction to what he said in the previous impeachment trial 20+ years ago.

    Game Over!

    It is not a game, it is deadly serious for the future of the USA.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:47:35, 30 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Dale Shipp on Thursday, January 30, 2020 07:35:51
    On 30 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...

    Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated multiple
    laws -- and I told you what they were.

    Do these Constitutional so called experts of yours have names.
    Mine is named Alan Dershowitz.



    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment does not meet Constitutional standards.

    According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he wants to

    Mr. Dershowitz is not bias, he is and always will be for the U.S. Constitution. During his time I think he laid out perfectly and with a whole lot of sense, the intention of the founders.

    These charges that were brought forth do not meet the standards found within the U.S. Constitution. You can not argue with history nor can you push it out of your way because of your political hatred and contempt for the President of the United States.

    Just look back what has transpired in the last 3 years
    First it was the phony fictional fake Russian Dossier.
    Then there was few top officials within intelligence community. (FBI,CIA) Deliberately falsified documents were provided to the fisa court, to spy on private American Citizens, running for POTUS.
    Then there was the Mueller Investigation which seemed to go on forever.
    At the end of this Robert Mueller himself provided a less then spectacular performance. Couldn't recall elements of his own report. Why because this report contained his name but largely was put together by more then a
    handful of democrats filled bias against Donald Trump.
    Then there the impeachment hearings, w/ pencilneck Shifty shiff. more bias
    not allowing the Republicans to speak - him with his "point of order" crap.

    There will be no trial.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, January 30, 2020 15:15:46
    Hello Greg,

    [..]

    I have been watching the events unfold at the Senate by the House Managers
    as well as the Defense for the President and not once have I heard anyone >talk about this independent body of the government. You know why because it >is irrelevant and nothing more then a ruse to try to smear the President.

    The president is on trial. The Senators are the jurors.
    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is presiding over the case.
    The rules are whatever the Senators want them to be.

    DS> DS> True, the Democrats did not count on the President releasing
    evidence DS> DS> that proves he committed a crime -- but that is exactly what
    he did. DS>
    DS> GD> Look- you need to understand what the articles of impeachment
    say.
    DS> GD> Neither of them are a crime that is punishable or will
    DS> GD> result w/ removal of the
    DS> GD> President.
    DS>
    DS> I have previously outlined four laws that were broken by the acts
    DS> referred to in the articles of impeachment. Try reading them with
    DS> understanding.

    Again you may outline all you wish, that does not change the FACT that
    what he is accessed with is a crime, because it is not a crime.
    Not even remotely.

    The president violated his oath of office. Whether what he did
    was or was not a crime is irrelevant.

    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment does
    not meet Constitutional standards.

    Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes
    will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the
    kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

    Translation: "If a president cheats to get elected, that's okay."

    Game Over!

    "Qu'on sang impur abreuve nos allons!"
    ~ from "La Marseillaise"

    MAGA FOREVER

    --Lee

    --
    Make Sure Your Next Erection Is In Safe Hands

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, January 30, 2020 19:07:31
    Hello Greg,

    Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and >DS>constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated DS>multiple
    laws -- and I told you what they were.

    Do these Constitutional so called experts of yours have names.
    Mine is named Alan Dershowitz.

    Really? Is that so?

    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment >DS>GD> does not meet Constitutional standards.

    According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he DS>wants to

    Mr. Dershowitz is not bias, he is and always will be for the U.S.
    Constitution.

    "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who
    completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and
    who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical
    crime." ~Alan Dershowitz, your beloved hero, 8/24/1998

    During his time I think he laid out perfectly and with a whole lot of sense,
    the intention of the founders.

    The "intention of the founders" - such as the right to own and keep
    slaves forever? Almost all of our early presidents owned slaves, and
    had no intention of freeing them. It was not until after Abraham
    Lincoln was dead that a Constitution amendment was passed and ratified,
    doing away with the practice of human bondage in this country. It
    took even longer for women to be granted the right to vote, and many
    other "rights" that did not exist when this country was founded.

    These charges that were brought forth do not meet the standards found within
    the U.S. Constitution.

    Oh, yeah man. Those who signed the US Constitution were gonna give
    up their right to own slaves, and also allow women the right to vote.
    Fat chance! This was a group of rich, white, non-Catholic men, all
    of whom were both racist and misogynist.

    You can not argue with history nor can you push it out of your way because
    of your political hatred and contempt for the President of
    the United States.

    Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. We know what
    happened in Germany prior to WWII. The same thing is happening in
    the USA today. And yet Forever Trumpers still cannot see the light.
    Which could result in the death of the USA as a republic, as well
    as the world being in existence.

    Just look back what has transpired in the last 3 years

    That is bad enough. The horror of the next 9 months may be
    even worse. And God forbid what will happen if this madness
    continues beyond that.

    First it was the phony fictional fake Russian Dossier.
    Then there was few top officials within intelligence community. (FBI,CIA) >Deliberately falsified documents were provided to the fisa court, to spy on >private American Citizens, running for POTUS.
    Then there was the Mueller Investigation which seemed to go on forever.
    At the end of this Robert Mueller himself provided a less then spectacular >performance. Couldn't recall elements of his own report. Why because this >report contained his name but largely was put together by more then a
    handful of democrats filled bias against Donald Trump.
    Then there the impeachment hearings, w/ pencilneck Shifty shiff. more bias >not allowing the Republicans to speak - him with his "point of order" crap.

    There will be no trial.

    This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office
    there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
    he has been tried and convicted.

    --Lee

    --
    Get Her Wet Here

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Thursday, January 30, 2020 18:52:41
    This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office
    there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
    he has been tried and convicted.
    There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
    if you think there is a crime please indulge me.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Richard Miles@1:3634/24 to Gregory Deyss on Thursday, January 30, 2020 20:21:25
    On 30 Jan 2020, Gregory Deyss said the following...

    There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
    if you think there is a crime please indulge me.

    Personally I'm not so certain whether there was a crime but even if he did indulge you it wouldn't matter. President Trump could state he screwed one of Epstein's "sex slaves" (as an example) and you would claim no crime. That sort of partisanship on both sides is one of the major things that's wrong with
    this country right now. Unfortunately it's the loudest and most obnoxious supporters of both sides that we hear from but nobody wants to listen to the majority of America which lies somewhere in the middle.

    -=>Richard Miles<=-
    -=>Captain Obvious<=-
    -=>bbs.shadowscope.com<=-

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A44 2020/01/30 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Shadowscope BBS | bbs.shadowscope.com | Temple, GA (1:3634/24)
  • From Dale Shipp@1:261/1466 to Gregory Deyss on Friday, January 31, 2020 02:51:00
    On 01-30-20 07:35, Gregory Deyss <=-
    spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: War Powers Vote <=-


    On 30 Jan 2020, Dale Shipp said the following...

    Where did you get your law degree? I ask because lawyers and constitutional experts have stated that what he did violated multiple
    laws -- and I told you what they were.

    Do these Constitutional so called experts of yours have names.
    Mine is named Alan Dershowitz.

    I do not recall their names but they testified in the House impeachment hearings. As to Alan Dershowitz, his testimony directly contradicted
    the testimony given by a constitutional professor at the Clinton
    Impeachment trial. And the name of that professor was Alan Dershowitz.
    His current testimony almost declared that Trump can do anything he
    wants so long as Trump believes it is in the national interest. That
    sounds like a Nixon quote -- "if the president does it, it is not
    against the law". And we all know how that ended up. Trump is not
    above the law, nor is he the judge of what is and what is not against
    the law. What he did violated multiple federal laws.



    Article I
    Abuse of Power

    Article II
    Obstruction of Congress

    According to Alan Dershowitz it does not this attempt of impeachment
    does not meet Constitutional standards.

    According to Alan Dershowitz the President can do anything he wants to

    Mr. Dershowitz is not bias, he is and always will be for
    the U.S. Constitution.

    Then explain why when he was testifying at the impeachment trial of a Democratic President he said one thing, and then completly reversed his testimony when testifying at the impeachmment trial of a Republican
    President. That shows bias in anyone's book.

    Just look back what has transpired in the last 3 years

    OK -- go for it.

    First it was the phony fictional fake Russian Dossier.

    Not phony. Much of the details in that Dossier have been collaborated
    by investigation. And BTW, it was commissioned by the Republicans.

    Then there was few top officials within intelligence community.
    (FBI,CIA) Deliberately falsified documents were provided to the fisa court, to spy on private American Citizens, running for POTUS.

    Wrong on two counts. There were mistakes made in the FISA warrents, but
    not by "Top Officials". And the FISA warrents were not against anyone
    running for POTUS. They were against Carter Page, a member of the
    campaign.

    Then there was the Mueller Investigation which seemed to go on
    forever.

    Perhaps in your mind. I believe it was two years. It produced a lot of evidence of Russian interference in the elections of 2016. It made indictments, arrests and convictions of multiple people. It recovered
    more money as a result of those convictions than the investigation cost.

    At the end of this Robert Mueller himself provided a less then
    spectacular performance. Couldn't recall elements of his own report.

    Fair statement. Mueller is a good investigator, but did not present a
    good public appearance before Congress. Has nothing to do with the
    content of the report though.

    Why because this report contained his name but largely was put together
    by more then a handful of democrats filled bias against Donald Trump.

    Wrong. Mueller and most of the members of his team were either neutral
    or Republicans.

    Then there the impeachment hearings, w/ pencilneck Shifty shiff. more
    bias not allowing the Republicans to speak - him with his "point of
    order" crap.

    I guess you are following Trump's procedure. When you cannot argue the
    facts, denigrate the participants of the other side by calling them
    derogatory names. As to "his point of order", can you name any
    occasion when other than when that was invoked whenever a Republican
    attempted to violate the law by naming the whistleblower.

    There will be no trial.

    Unfortunately, there will not be a fair trial.

    Dale Shipp
    fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
    (1:261/1466)


    ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:58:09, 31 Jan 2019
    ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

    --- Maximus/NT 3.01
    * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:221/360 to Gregory Deyss on Friday, January 31, 2020 14:12:00
    Hello Greg,

    This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office
    there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
    he has been tried and convicted.

    There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
    if you think there is a crime please indulge me.

    Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer who is defending Trump, has publicly
    stated there does not have to be a crime in order for the president
    to be impeached/convicted/removed from office. I quoted his own
    words, in this echo.

    --Lee

    --
    Stop Workin', Start Jerkin'

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Richard Miles on Saturday, February 01, 2020 09:41:10
    On 30 Jan 2020, Richard Miles said the following...

    Personally I'm not so certain whether there was a crime but even if he
    did indulge you it wouldn't matter. President Trump could state he
    screwed one of Epstein's "sex slaves" (as an example) and you would
    claim no crime. That sort of partisanship on both sides is one of the major things that's wrong with this country right now. Unfortunately
    it's the loudest and most obnoxious supporters of both sides that we
    hear from but nobody wants to listen to the majority of America which
    lies somewhere in the middle.

    The left loves to point out that photo that they are trying make famous of Trump and Epstein together, the truth is when Trump found out of Epstein's taste for young girls, Trump threw Epstein out of Marlargo.

    Btw, Flight records also show William "Slick Willie" Clinton on board the Lolita Express more then a dozen times.

    Yes, there are loud voices from both sides, from the right and the left, as I listen to my fellow Citizens who are Conservatives and my countrymen, I find that their thoughts are sensible as they are based on logic.

    As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional. Furthermore I find no sufficient reason why any excuse or pass should be made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Lee Lofaso on Saturday, February 01, 2020 09:58:18
    On 31 Jan 2020, Lee Lofaso said the following...

    Hello Greg,

    This sham trial will soon be over. But once he leaves office >LL>there will be a very real trial. With real consequences after
    he has been tried and convicted.

    There can be no conviction if there is no crime.
    if you think there is a crime please indulge me.

    Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer who is defending Trump, has publicly
    stated there does not have to be a crime in order for the president
    to be impeached/convicted/removed from office. I quoted his own
    words, in this echo.

    I found the words of Alan Dershowitz to be quite powerful because he showed
    the intent of the founders.

    We heard of the struggle of impeachment within those early days of the founders. We also learned what the requirement would be or basis or reasons
    why impeachment would be sought. This was a education in knowledge to show
    that there was no cause for such an impeachment.

    This is why they failed to make their case.

    In short there was no constitutional justification for impeachment.

    . ______ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
    _[]_³³Äij³ ³ Fidonet ³ ³FSX Net³ ³ Trump ³ ³ Another Message ³
    { NET 267 ³ ³1:267/150³ ³21:1/127³ ³ Train ³ ³ by Gregory ³
    / 00ÄÄÄÄ00'-¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00ÄÄ00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄ00Ä00ÄÙ¨€ÀÄÄ00ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ00ÄÄÄÙ

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Richard Miles@1:3634/24 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, February 01, 2020 11:01:25
    On 01 Feb 2020, Gregory Deyss said the following...

    Btw, Flight records also show William "Slick Willie" Clinton on board
    the Lolita Express more then a dozen times.

    Yeah, that whole clique are a bunch of damn pedophiles and criminals. They assume that they are so rich and have so much power that nothing will happen. Unfortunately it's pretty much the truth.

    Yes, there are loud voices from both sides, from the right and the left, as I listen to my fellow Citizens who are Conservatives and my
    countrymen, I find that their thoughts are sensible as they are based on logic.

    As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional. Furthermore I find no sufficient reason why any excuse or pass should be made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.

    And therein lies my point.

    -=>Richard Miles<=-
    -=>Captain Obvious<=-
    -=>bbs.shadowscope.com<=-

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A44 2020/01/31 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Shadowscope BBS | bbs.shadowscope.com | Temple, GA (1:3634/24)
  • From aaron thomas@1:123/525 to Gregory Deyss on Saturday, February 01, 2020 23:59:27
    As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional.

    I see that too, but don't you think some are more extreme than others?

    made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.

    It's those "less delusional" liberals that I think we should try to work with more. Not all liberal causes are ridiculous. The two sides ought to
    compromise on some issues, but both are trying to appeal to people who don't share my idea.

    But wouldn't it be nice if the entire federal government came to an agreement on abortion - making it legal within the first 6 weeks, but illegal after
    that, without letting states have a say over it? That way, the Americans who are never satisfied will know what the rules are and they can choose to break them or obey them, with some idea of the consequences.

    ..but that won't fly with democrats trying to appeal to idiots who cry about stuff like hairstyle oppression; those goofballs won't vote for a democrat who's willing to make a deal with Republicans, and the democrats realize this, so they stay strong on their agenda.

    ..but it's the Republicans, if anybody, who would bend by allowing the
    6 weeks abortion. Then they'd bend some more, and offer 7 weeks, but it seems like nothing would be good enough for the hairstyle idiots unless it's unlimited time abortions. We won't bend that far, so, abortion remains a difficult issue for decades and decades, with the occasional extremism like
    in VA & NY.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
    * Origin: Alcoholiday / Est. 1995 / alco.bbs.io (1:123/525)
  • From TIM RICHARDSON@1:123/140 to GREGORY DEYSS on Friday, February 07, 2020 22:49:00


    As for the words coming from the left, I find them quite delusional. GD>Furthermore I find no sufficient reason why any excuse or pass should be GD>made to normalize or try find a point being made within these views.


    I have always strongly suspected that this whole thing from the ploy to get a special prosecutor, to impeachment, was a desperate plan on the part of many democrats and their appointees to deflect attention from `democrats'!


    Hunter Biden might only be the tip if the iceburg!


    They hoped Meuller would find something to damage Trump. Nothing!


    Then Schitt and the evil dwarf tried.......they failed!


    Meantime, an investigation is going forward into the activities of many `democrats'!






    ---
    *Durango b301 #PE*
    * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)