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

  • #76
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Even the staunchly anti-Trump New York Times has admitted that the things that Vindman (who appears to be the source for the first whistleblower) wanted added to the transcript in no way changed its meaning and therefore still doesn't show Trump strong arming Ukraine.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/o...p-ukraine.html

    Comment


    • #77
      The problem, as I see it, is that people like Rogue, who is an intelligent man, can still post what you are responding to as a 'summary' of what the times said. What can cause a persons perception to be so completely altered to the point they can no longer see what is right before them?
      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        His opinion - other legal experts disagree.



        Interesting that you eliminated the possibility of recommendation for impeachment, and dealt only with the concept of indictment.

        Jim, with all due respect, you have not demonstrated yourself to be very knowledgeable in how the law actually works.
        What do you think Meuller was doing when he stated that he can't indict but Congress can? It was as strong a 'recommendation' as was permissible under his guidelines. Anything stronger would have been an implicit indictment, which he was not allowed to do.

        A lot of these conversations are kind of like a kid that is told "don't touch the cookie jar", who then eats all the cookies in it and then claims "well, you didn't tell me not to eat the cookies inside!" It's just all plays on words ignoring the realities and hoping that people will buy that the plays on words are 'get out of jail free' cards.

        The big question here CP is why will you stand behind arguments aimed at protecting a man that clearly has broken he law. Over and over again.

        Why will you stand behind a man that is abusing the constitution and playing every trick in the book to get away with what is plainly illegal?
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 11-01-2019, 07:24 AM.
        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


        • #79
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Ah, deflection. OK, I'll play...

          I'm multi-tasking. I'm responding to you and others, but I'm also praising God in the things He has done in and around me, in my daughter who was living in rebellion, but was gloriously brought back to the Lord and is serving Him...

          So, your turn.
          Let me give you a real answer here CP.

          I am here - at least in civics - because I am seeing good people support evil. And I cannot give up hope that somehow, if I just keep bringing to the forefront the moral compromise of it all, the consciences of all those good people supporting evil will kick in. That is why I keep trying. But what I am learning is truly disheartening. It does appear that most people, regardless of the profession of faith in Christ, are willing to compromise truth and morality to get what they want. To the point it distorts their perception of the world. To the point, in the extreme cases (not you) they are willing to cast aspersions on the righteous that stand up for what is good and true. And I just can't quite accept that is reality. Not of Christian people. And so I just keep trying and probably will never stop. Because until we are all dead, there is always to possibility of repentance and restoration.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            Let me give you a real answer here CP.

            I am here - at least in civics - because I am seeing good people support evil. And I cannot give up hope that somehow, if I just keep bringing to the forefront the moral compromise of it all, the consciences of all those good people supporting evil will kick in. That is why I keep trying. But what I am learning is truly disheartening. It does appear that most people, regardless of the profession of faith in Christ, are willing to compromise truth and morality to get what they want. To the point it distorts their perception of the world. To the point, in the extreme cases (not you) they are willing to cast aspersions on the righteous that stand up for what is good and true. And I just can't quite accept that is reality. Not of Christian people. And so I just keep trying and probably will never stop. Because until we are all dead, there is always to possibility of repentance and restoration.
            I appreciate the straight answer, Jim.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              But you can be PROUD of me, Carpe, cause I have been so much kinder and gentler with JimL, as kind of an experiment to see if he could do likewise, and I think it has cut the traffic on this site by about 63.275%!
              I have not been watching - but I would say that is a good thing and you should be proud of you. My opinion counts for squat in this equation.

              How the basic teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth have become so poisoned I will never understand.

              And no - I don't want to engage in a back and forth on the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings. I prefer to try to live out the best of them as I understand them. I have found that this is not a good place to do that, sadly enough.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #82
                According to the Associated Press
                And worst of all for the impeachment co-conspirators, Vindman's testimony did add any new facts. All we got from him were opinion and hand-wringing appeals to emotion...

                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                  The problem, as I see it, is that people like Rogue, who is an intelligent man, can still post what you are responding to as a 'summary' of what the times said. What can cause a persons perception to be so completely altered to the point they can no longer see what is right before them?
                  Group think, tribalism, not ever wanting to admit that their side, thus themselves, could be guilty of anything. A sort of blind patriotism to the team.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I have not been watching - but I would say that is a good thing and you should be proud of you. My opinion counts for squat in this equation.
                    Oh, not TRUE -- I value your opinion.

                    How the basic teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth have become so poisoned I will never understand.
                    Ya know, He could be pretty sharp with his critics and antagonists - I wouldn't soft pedal His uses of "snake" and "viper" and "whited wall" and such - and even implying that the Jewish leaders were bastards.

                    And no - I don't want to engage in a back and forth on the "true meaning" of Jesus' teachings. I prefer to try to live out the best of them as I understand them. I have found that this is not a good place to do that, sadly enough.
                    So, kinda of a Cafeteria Jesus approach. If you're gonna pick your own standard, why does it even matter what Jesus said?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      What do you think Meuller was doing when he stated that he can't indict but Congress can? It was as strong a 'recommendation' as was permissible under his guidelines. Anything stronger would have been an implicit indictment, which he was not allowed to do.

                      A lot of these conversations are kind of like a kid that is told "don't touch the cookie jar", who then eats all the cookies in it and then claims "well, you didn't tell me not to eat the cookies inside!" It's just all plays on words ignoring the realities and hoping that people will buy that the plays on words are 'get out of jail free' cards.

                      The big question here CP is why will you stand behind arguments aimed at protecting a man that clearly has broken he law. Over and over again.

                      Why will you stand behind a man that is abusing the constitution and playing every trick in the book to get away with what is plainly illegal?
                      Show me your best example of me "standing behind Trump" as opposed to standing up for the truth. As I have stated numerous times, Trump has actually done enough on his own to warrant criticism without people making stuff up, or going to extremes like declaring him a criminal when that hasn't yet been established. It MAY! But he's entitled to the same presumption of innocence as the rest of us.

                      Show me where I have excused or defended Trump's evil, please.

                      I believe in truth and decency, Jim.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        His opinion - other legal experts disagree.
                        They can disagree all they want, it's the OLC ruling. Btw, your autocratic president agrees with him and goes further in arguing that the President is above the law, period. His lawyer argued in court that the president can not be indicted or investigated by anyone, including Congress, for anything whatsoever, including shooting someone on 5th ave in broad daylight.

                        Interesting that you eliminated the possibility of recommendation for impeachment, and dealt only with the concept of indictment.
                        I didn't eliminate it, It isn't his responsibility. His job in this case is to investigate, gather the evidence, and turn it over to Congress in order that they make the determination as to whether to Impeach or not.
                        Jim, with all due respect, you have not demonstrated yourself to be very knowledgeable in how the law actually works.
                        With all due respect, CP, you have demonstrated the reverse to be true.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          They can disagree all they want, it's the OLC ruling. Btw, your autocratic president agrees with him and goes further in arguing that the President is above the law, period. His lawyer argued in court that the president can not be indicted or investigated by anyone, including Congress, for anything whatsoever, including shooting someone on 5th ave in broad daylight.


                          I didn't eliminate it, It isn't his responsibility. His job in this case is to investigate, gather the evidence, and turn it over to Congress in order that they make the determination as to whether to Impeach or not.

                          With all due respect, CP, you have demonstrated the reverse to be true.
                          This post gave me a chuckle. The sad part is that you actually believe what you typed.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            And that opinion appears to be a decidedly minority one.
                            That's totally beside the point if it happens to be the opinion that supports a narrative.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              This post gave me a chuckle. The sad part is that you actually believe what you typed.
                              Which is it that you don't believe? I take it that you don't believe that Trumps lawyer argued in court that while president, Trump is above the law. They probably didn't report that on Trump tv.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                Which is it that you don't believe? I take it that you don't believe that Trumps lawyer argued in court that while president, Trump is above the law. They probably didn't report that on Trump tv.
                                Back to your old ways. Not surprised in the least.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
                                19 responses
                                105 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
                                2 responses
                                36 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
                                6 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post RumTumTugger  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
                                51 responses
                                252 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Working...
                                X