The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

[rogue06]

You are the one who are not following it though you claim to be a Christian.

I said I prefer it. I did not say I follow it. I like its' call for a civil and respectful discourse and think we should all be able to agree on that.

You mean like when Christ used insulting language to drive a point home?

The fact is that sometimes you have to speak plainly and directly, to explicitly call out something as it is -- by its right name rather than sugar coat it. This was something that folks like Paul, John the Baptist and the prophets and even Jesus often did. They did not shrink from using harsh language to make their point and did not beat around the bush because they were scared they might upset someone's delicate sensibilities. Jesus did not come to make "nice" but rather was honest and forthright

For instance, look at what Christ said in Matthew 23:33 to the Pharisees: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" In the same exchange He repeatedly and explicitly referred to them as "hypocrites" (something you ought to be intimately familiar with) as well as "whitewashed tombs" (looks good on the outside but full of rot and uncleanness on the inside), "blind fools" and even "child of hell" (in John 8:44 He said "You are of your father the devil"^[1]).

Earlier at His baptism He called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7) and again after casting out a demon He said "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?" (Matthew 12:34).

Moreover Jesus did far more than just use strong language. In the cleansing of the Temple account we are told in John 2 that Jesus made a whip or scourge out of cords and used it to drive out the money-changers (who's tables He overturned in the process).

But you would have us believe that Jesus was all about hugs and saying things like "can't we all just get along?" I think you would condemn Jesus as being unchristian

Finally, hypocrite that you are, you have never -- not even once -- called out anyone from "your side" for being uncivil or disrespectful. This reveals for everyone to see that you don't give a rat's hindquarters about civility or respect but instead merely seek to use them as a club to attack those you disagree with. If that wasn't the case, if you were truly wanting polite conversation then you would be chiding both sides.








1. Paul also called someone (Elymas the magician) "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy" as recorded in Acts 13:10. Should he have hugged him and been cautious of hurting his feelings instead?

[One Bad Pig]

It always reminds me of the old saying about how even the devil can quote Scripture.

Yep. And it's not as if Charles actually appears to be interested in civil discourse, as he only ever chides one side of debate for ostensibly failing to engage in it. This has been pointed out to him on multiple occasions.

ETA: Ninja'ed!

[DivineOb]

The fear and unease on behalf of those arguing that these texts are benign in the various threads is palpable. You'd be well advised to assume that more is going to come out.

Do you really believe UKR is only starting their investigation into this issue *now*? Getting Trump out of office is a national security issue for them.

Take the L on this one and move on.

[oxmixmudd]

(1) So when you called people 'fools', you somehow managed to replicate Jesus' impossible to replicate righteousness?

If you limit the possible reasons behind using a term like 'fool' to just 2, that would be a reasonable conclusion. But it is more complex than that. There are more than just two possible reasons for using the term 'fool'. So I am neither equating myself with Jesus, nor am I using the term in anger.

I don't buy the 'Jesus used challenge-riposte rhetoric' argument that MM and LPOT have offered in the past as justification for their name-calling, and I don't buy your attempt at it either.

You are not understanding my purpose in using the term. The logic being used reflects foolishness in that they are supporting political rhetoric that is actually destructive to the fundamental safeguards to our form of government. This is a foolish thing to do.

(2) Your justification for doing something only Jesus is undoubtedly justified in is that your political views are correct, and people who disagree are acting immorally and supporting an evil. That depends on you not being wrong about anything - good luck with that - no-one gets it all 100%.

a conclusion based on a false premise, therefore there is no need to discuss it.

It also assumes a lot, and people who see things differently from you, or don't have the same information you have, or simply don't accept some of the data points that you accept (for example Sam appears to disagree with you on the weight on the Lev Parnas interview thing) aren't going to reach the conclusions you do. But you're going to call them 'fools' and accuse them of supporting evil, not following Jesus, etc. It's what you've been doing pretty much since you started posting in Civics, AFAICT. And it's wrong, and it's dangerous, since if you are wrong about even some small points, the justification you appeal to for attacking others is down the drain.

This would be true of an initial conversation, but there is a history here, so there are not as many possible alternatives as you are proposing

(3) You assume that your case against Trump is watertight, and people who don't see it your way are wrong. That's hubris, bro.

No, the case is clear. There is no other walk of life or other interaction with people where the sort of wholly ludicrous alternatives proposed to explain the existing data and testimony would be given the time of day.

That they won't listen to you because they are stupid - that's just not true (in most cases), or uniformed, or just prejudiced and unwilling to change (not true either, in most cases).

The people that are supporting trump in this are driven by motivations other than logic or the evidence. But I dont presume to understand why they are motivated by something other than logic or the evidence.

Do you think insulting people will get them to listen to you? Do you listen to MM, or LPOT, or other posters who you feel insult you? I bet you don't, so why do you think they would listen to you because you have insulted them.

You are correct here. A more or less desperate attempt having exhausted all attempts at reason.

(4) It's not your job to fight for Jesus and righteousness by convincing people to agree with your take on politics on TWeb. This is a discussion board, bro. It's not a church, with you as God's prophet, calling people to return to righteousness. Get over yourself already.

I would disagree with you. All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to remain silent. So I cant remain silent when so many who name the name of Christ continue to ally themselves with a deed that is so obviously contrary to the constitution, the duty of the person occupying the office of POTUS, and the morality the scripture calls us to.

[Cow Poke]

The fear and unease on behalf of those arguing that these texts are benign in the various threads is palpable. You'd be well advised to assume that more is going to come out.

Do you really believe UKR is only starting their investigation into this issue *now*? Getting Trump out of office is a national security issue for them.

Take the L on this one and move on.

This thread is about Charles, please stay on topic!

[One Bad Pig]

The fear and unease on behalf of those arguing that these texts are benign in the various threads is palpable. You'd be well advised to assume that more is going to come out.

Do you really believe UKR is only starting their investigation into this issue *now*? Getting Trump out of office is a national security issue for them.

Take the L on this one and move on.

You're about as good at mind-reading as JimL. That is to say, you suck at it. Badly.

[oxmixmudd]

As was said earlier in the thread, even if "it needed to be done" that doesn't mean it wasn't "spying" - having a secret informant inside the Trump campaign is spying.

Even when the police have an informant in a criminal gang, it is spying. That they need to be caught doesn't negate that the informant was spying for the police.

Again, a technical point irrelavent wrt my original claim about the foolishness of equating the trump investigation to the hostile efforts aimed at yavanovitch, and irrelavent to the fact spying here used is a pejorative attempt to de-legitimize the need to investigate Trumps associations with the Russian oligarchs.

But I will admit that rather than trying to deal with the misuse of the term spying in this context, I probably should have just said 'so what' and then focused on the legitimacy of any and all investigative efforts to determine if Trump's associations constituted a threat to national security.

[oxmixmudd]

In other words, "Do as I say, not as I do." Textbook hypocrisy.

No MM. it is not hypocritical to say one believes in the moral values of scripture even if one does not believe the claims regarding Christ's divine nature, as long as you are true to those values in it that you say you believe.

Hypocrisy is when you say you believe a thing and then you act contrary to that stated belief.

[Ronson]

Texts released yesterday reveal

Newly-published text exchanges involving Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas show him discussing efforts to stalk former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, and refer to her bluntly as 'that [female dog]'. (DO's edit)

The conversations back up Yovanovitch's testimony, showing Parnas and his associates plotting to "get rid" of her.

Hyde later sent several texts suggesting he was keeping tabs on Yovanovitch in Ukraine, adding, "They are willing to help if we/you would like a price."

At the end of March, Hyde texted Parnas updating him on Yovanovitch's location and the state of her security.

He followed up saying how they "have a person inside."

Parnas replied: "She's not a simple fool, trust me. But she's not getting away."

And don't forget that Lev worked for Rudy who was acting as Trump's personal attorney on Ukraine matters.

I'd like to hear anyone give a benign and not ad hoc interpretation of these. Rereading them still sends chills down my spine.

It bothers me less than reading the texts of FBI agents saying they'd stop someone from being duly elected as POTUS.

[Cow Poke]

It bothers me less than reading the texts of FBI agents saying they'd stop someone from being duly elected.

The "insurance policy". "yes:

[Charles]

You mean like when Christ used insulting language to drive a point home?

The fact is that sometimes you have to speak plainly and directly, to explicitly call out something as it is -- by its right name rather than sugar coat it. This was something that folks like Paul, John the Baptist and the prophets and even Jesus often did. They did not shrink from using harsh language to make their point and did not beat around the bush because they were scared they might upset someone's delicate sensibilities. Jesus did not come to make "nice" but rather was honest and forthright

For instance, look at what Christ said in Matthew 23:33 to the Pharisees: "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" In the same exchange He repeatedly and explicitly referred to them as "hypocrites" (something you ought to be intimately familiar with) as well as "whitewashed tombs" (looks good on the outside but full of rot and uncleanness on the inside), "blind fools" and even "child of hell" (in John 8:44 He said "You are of your father the devil"^[1]).

Earlier at His baptism He called the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7) and again after casting out a demon He said "You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?" (Matthew 12:34).

Moreover Jesus did far more than just use strong language. In the cleansing of the Temple account we are told in John 2 that Jesus made a whip or scourge out of cords and used it to drive out the money-changers (who's tables He overturned in the process).

But you would have us believe that Jesus was all about hugs and saying things like "can't we all just get along?" I think you would condemn Jesus as being unchristian

It seem you have not read what I have already written regarding this exact point. Thus it is quite obvious that what you have presented here is a straw man in which you try to make the point that very well known quotes puts things in a different perspective. Sorry, they don't, and you would have know my position if you had read what I wrote:

Since you are not Jesus I fail to see that you are in a postion to do what he sometimes did. I don't think your rightheousness, mandate to judge or actual knowledge about the true motives, hearts and minds of others is at his level according to the Gospel.

As for your personal attacks on me and your false claims that I belong to a "side" in these discussions I suggest you start by confronting my actual points if you can. It would be a lot more convincing. It must be embarrasing for a Christian to go through these pages and see the number of personal attacks and false claims "Christians" have made.

[Cow Poke]

As for your personal attacks on me and your false claims that I belong to a "side" in these discussions...

Charles, do you really honestly claim that you are an equal opportunity "corrector"?

[DivineOb]

It bothers me less than reading the texts of FBI agents saying they'd stop someone from being duly elected as POTUS.

Were those FBI agents cleared of wrongdoing?

[Cow Poke]

Were those FBI agents cleared of wrongdoing?

By whom?

[Charles]

No MM. it is not hypocritical to say one believes in the moral values of scripture even if one does not believe the claims regarding Christ's divine nature, as long as you are true to those values in it that you say you believe.

Hypocrisy is when you say you believe a thing and then you act contrary to that stated belief.

I read his false claim in this regard in light of the words in which he quite honestly admits the method he uses:

I want to respond to this: the point of insults used in this fashion is not necessarily o compel someone to listen to you but to publicly dishonor them so that other people will be dissuaded from listening to them. [...]

It explains a lot.