Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Whistleblower identified

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    First a question. How does someone who was until recently anonymous receive death threats prior to their name being made public?
    I've been wondering that myself.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      First, I heartily endorse your assistance in derailing this thread, even if you can't find it in your conscience to condemn it directly. Second, please use the indent tags, not the quote tags, when including commentary, so it doesn't poof away when responding using "Reply with Quote."

      With that out of the way, note the superiority of "brood" in comparison to the "generation" of your citation. Where "brood" brings to mind the newborn, "generation" evokes an entire lifespan, removing the additional implication of a growing evil, even before more topical interpretations are included:
      Second, John's hearers were not all good descendants of their ancestors anyway. "Viper" was certainly an insult, and brood of vipers (offspring of vipers) carries the insult further. In the ancient Mediterranean many people thought of vipers as mother killers. In the fifth century B.C. Herodotus declared that newborn Arabian vipers chewed their way out of their mothers' wombs, killing their mothers in the process. Herodotus believed that they did so to avenge their fathers, who were slain by the mothers during procreation (Herod. Hist. 3.109). Later writers applied his words to serpents everywhere (Aelian On Animals 1.24; Pliny N.H. 10.170; Plut. Divine Vengeance 32, Mor. 567F). Calling John's hearers vipers would have been an insult, but calling them a brood of vipers accused them of killing their own mothers, indicating the utmost moral depravity. That Matthew applies this phrase to religious leaders may be unfortunately significant.

      No doubt somewhere in some obscure scholarly journal there's evidence that Herodotus' bad biology of 5th century BCE, echoed and expanded by in the works of Aelian or Pliny in 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE, respectively, all of Italy, or Plutarch of 1st century CE Greece, was current and applicable to John's illiterate listeners of first century CE Palestine.

      But no matter, as the above still reduces to John hurling a cutting insult — according to Matthew, whose accuracy I have other reasons to discount — which might be impressive if he was playing an ancient version of the dozens, but can't substitute for reasoned argument or answer the obvious objection that it's based on bad biology, independent of any familiarity with Herodotus, Aelian, and Pliny.

      "You're wrong because John insulted you," isn't any more convincing than "John says you're wrong," which isn't convincing, absent a belief that John is right because he's John, an appeal to an authority that can't be demonstrated, given his insult's appeal to the counterfactual noted earlier:
      A "brood of vipers" isn't evil, just dangerous, and even then only if mishandled, and its emphasis in Matthew likely tells us more about Matthew's penchant for hyperbole and fear of snakes than anything of actual import other than the possible lesson that even a god can have a bad day. Hardly news, or necessary though, as Leda'd likely agree.

      Left unremarked is its lack of utility to anyone other than Christians looking to distance themselves from other faiths, making it especially inept outside that community. More, unlike "love one another," or "forgive seventy times seven times," it doesn't advocate for a principle to live by, and worse, provides cover for the poor manners of the Enyarts, Holdings, and their ill-bred fanbois.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        First a question. How does someone who was until recently anonymous receive death threats prior to their name being made public?
        By reference, natch, or, if they're capable of wiping up their own drool, or googling, or possess an IQ higher than their hat size, through missives directed to his lawyers.

        Parties Spar Over White House Aide in Combative Impeachment Hearing
        Democrats accuse Republicans of using appearance by Col. Vindman to try to unmask whistleblower
        By Dustin Volz, Andrew Restuccia and Siobhan Hughes
        Updated Oct. 29, 2019 9:43 pm ET
        While the identity of the person remains publicly unknown, the legal team representing him has received multiple death threats that have led to at least one law-enforcement investigation, according to people close to the legal team, as well as other abusive communications.

        None of the threats thus far have appeared to be actual credible threats of violence, the people said. The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment.

        Second, your continued attempts at bribing folks with cookies is why I selected this smiley for you: [ATTACH=CONFIG]40635[/ATTACH]The Devil's baker
        The transcript will show there was no quid pro quo, and that my hair is, as always, perfect.

        And third, bacon.

        Does there really need to be anything more after #3?
        A quick search shows this is indeed a winner.

        Don't tell the preacher. He'll pout.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          We also just had testimony that what you said above is a load of hogswallop. And that from one of the carefully cherry-picked witnesses called by Schiff and his cronies (since he has forbidden the Republicans from calling any witnesses).

          Morrison made it clear that nothing illegal was said during the call. And he made it clear that the Ukrainians had no idea that there was any kind of hold placed on shipments of arms[1]. And in spite of WaPo's truly bizarre claims that he testified that "Trump Appeared to Seek Quid Pro Quo" he actually shot that down (see previous sentence) as well as many other claims especially those made by Taylor.










          1. hard to strong-arm someone who is blissfully unaware that leverage is being applied and given that they didn't do what the TDS crowd claims that Trump demanded provides even more corroboration that the supposed shakedown only exists in the fevered imagination of those who insist it just must have happened.
          You are discounting the rest of the testimony, the other observations, the additional facts from outside that very small world of the phone call itself that make that comment at best a naive or hopeful opinion. But I don't know how to get you to actually look at it outside the narrative of the breitbarts of the world. From what I can see rogue, you are not looking at the facts, you are looking at the narrative designed to help you not see the facts for what they are.

          There is significant outside evidence that Zelenski and his staff understood Trump was holding back aid pending his cooperation. So whereas Morrison might be holding out hope the call itself can be considered 'innocent', the actual probability that is the case is about 0.

          Part of that narrative is "TDS". People like myself have some unexplained sickness that keeps them on the warpath against Trump. Trump is 'not that bad'. And the legtimate media is just putting up 'Fake News' and they are all just fever pitched against Donald Trump and never report what is actually going on or what has actually been done or what the actually implications are of what has been done.
          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-02-2019, 03:19 PM.
          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
            Don't tell the preacher. He'll pout.
            The preacher is rejoicing - he loves his brudder.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              John relates the two quite closely.

              OK, so listing things as the above - I has a professor who was adamant that the last of a group doesn't need the comma before the 'and'.

              Which is it? Comma before the last 'and' or not?
              The comma before the "and/or" is called an Oxford comma, and all you need to know about it is that bringing it up around English professors is guaranteed to generate a spitball fight. Journalists generally omit it, on the arcane, pre-web principle that extra characters use up column inches.

              Everyone, however, agrees that what "I has" is not what "he gots."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                The comma before the "and/or" is called an Oxford comma, and all you need to know about it is that bringing it up around English professors is guaranteed to generate a spitball fight. Journalists generally omit it, on the arcane, pre-web principle that extra characters use up column inches.
                This professor seemed to enjoy using it to start fights.

                Everyone, however, agrees that what "I has" is not what "he gots."
                I noticed the "I has" after I posted. Sufficiently after that it would have caused an "edited" note at the bottom of my post. I hated "edited" notes at the bottom of my posts more than being derided for mistyping something.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  By reference, natch, or, if they're capable of wiping up their own drool, or googling, or possess an IQ higher than their hat size, through missives directed to his lawyers.

                  Parties Spar Over White House Aide in Combative Impeachment Hearing
                  Democrats accuse Republicans of using appearance by Col. Vindman to try to unmask whistleblower
                  By Dustin Volz, Andrew Restuccia and Siobhan Hughes
                  Updated Oct. 29, 2019 9:43 pm ET
                  While the identity of the person remains publicly unknown, the legal team representing him has received multiple death threats that have led to at least one law-enforcement investigation, according to people close to the legal team, as well as other abusive communications.

                  None of the threats thus far have appeared to be actual credible threats of violence, the people said. The Federal Bureau of Investigation declined to comment.
                  I believe that at least at one point his lawyer said that he had been misquoted about receiving death threats and accounts were exaggerated. But that could have changed since then.

                  Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                  The transcript will show there was no quid pro quo, and that my hair is, as always, perfect.



                  A quick search shows this is indeed a winner.

                  Don't tell the preacher. He'll pout.
                  He's tough, he'll survive. After all he's a Texan.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I hated "edited" notes at the bottom of my posts ...
                    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                    He's tough, he'll survive. After all he's a Texan.
                    An opportunity to test his mettle descends as if from heaven.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      He's tough, he'll survive. After all he's a Texan.
                      I must admit I still get chills when I hear Yellow Rose of Texas, but not necessarily for the right reasons.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        There is significant outside evidence that Zelenski and his staff understood Trump was holding back aid pending his cooperation.
                        And that evidence is...?
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I don't care what the judge said in response, I care what Trump's lawyers actually said, and they never said what you say they said.
                          Yeah, actually thats's exactly what the wannabe dictators lawyers argued in court. Judge Denny Chin asked Trumps lawyers; that if Trump shot someone on 5th avenue, is it your contention that local authorities could do nothing about it?

                          Trumps lawyer replied. "That's correct, yes."

                          That's what the Judge considered to be repugnant, the argument that Trump, his organization, family and associates are beyond the reach of investigators, no matter how heinous the crimes, that they are all immune from criminal prosecution.

                          http://www.salon.com/2019/10/11/why-...e-law_partner/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Yeah, actually thats's exactly what the wannabe dictators lawyers argued in court. Judge Denny Chin asked Trumps lawyers; that if Trump shot someone on 5th avenue, is it your contention that local authorities could do nothing about it?

                            Trumps lawyer replied. "That's correct, yes."


                            That's what the Judge considered to be repugnant, the argument that Trump, his organization, family and associates are beyond the reach of investigators, no matter how heinous the crimes, that they are all immune from criminal prosecution.

                            http://www.salon.com/2019/10/11/why-...e-law_partner/
                            Your source does not support your claims in bold. Do you have an actual source for this?
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Having spot checked a few of your sources, they don't say what you guys are claiming. The argument, obviously, is that if there is evidence that a crime was committed - such as a president committing murder in broad daylight - then the president can be impeached and removed from office and then investigated and charged as a private citizen, but while president, he is intentionally shielded by the Constitution from petty and politically motivated lawsuits, such as trying to subpoena his tax returns without probable cause (and, no, "We want to look at them to see if there's a crime" is not probable cause).

                              To put it another way, the Office of the President is immune to criminal investigation by design, but the person serving as president is not. The remedy for a criminal president is impeachment and removal from office which happens in the legislature and not the judiciary, but the bar for such action is deliberately high requiring a very serious offense such as treason or bribery. Murder would certainly qualify as well.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              160 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              379 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X