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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch
Collapse
X
-
So in this particular instance he only got his information second hand and not third or fourth. Maybe people should be asking Taylor then rather than relying on Kent.
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 Charles View PostI much prefer the Bible:
ETA: Yep, still there, unlike the quote tags.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat's why I've been so polite to you, Charles. You're my hero.
(By the way, I 'fixed' your Bible citation using the "verse" tags. Isn't that sharp looking? Except where I closed it wrong?)
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostYou only "prefer" it in so far as it serves your purpose of hypocritically beating Christians over the head and not because you take the gospel to heart and live your life accordingly. For example, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, you do not "revere Christ as Lord" as commanded by scripture.
When a non-adherent uses someone else's sacred text hoping to spur agreement, it's a trap, and it's not an honest trap, either. We're using it knowing full well the adherent believes it because, e.g., the Bible says so. At the same time, as non-adherents, our position is that, e.g. the Bible got it right, this time.
Specifically, because it exemplified something we knew was true for independent reasons, most certainly not because, e.g., the Bible says so. "Because I said so" isn't a good reason to believe something. We shouldn't encourage it. It gives a tactical advantage that can only lead to a Pyrrhic victory.
But, fwiw, I believe the Bible got it right on this one, because it reiterates the common experience, "You catch more flies with honey ...," while adding a fillip of its own to spur on the unreconstructed who need the motivation of making their opponents, " ... ashamed of their slander."
That's a good construction.
Well done, author of 1 Peter, whoever you were.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostI saw what you did there, CP. And I approve, ironically enough, of both the post that was deleted, and the decision to delete it.
Color me suitably impressed.
Just don't tell anybody.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI'm jealous of your perfect hair.
Sheesh.
For all y'all sleuths out there ... it was a complimentary acknowledgment, which was cool, stated negatively, which wasn't cool, and then deleted, (I'm guessing because it was stated negatively), which was also cool.Last edited by Juvenal; 01-19-2020, 08:54 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Juvenal View PostEvery thread on TWeb.
Sheesh.
For all y'all sleuths out there ... it was a complimentary acknowledgment, which was cool, stated negatively, which wasn't cool, and then deleted, (I'm guessing because it was stated negatively), which was also cool.
If y'all do meet for coffee, naturally on neutral ground of some restaurant and/or coffee shop, he'll retrieve an electric razor planted beforehand in the bathroom.
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 rogue06 View PostNot to beat a dead horse any more than necessary but Kent was relating what others had told him as he candidly acknowledged. IOW, hearsay. And often hearsay several times removed.
He testified that his information was not based on first hand knowledge but was based upon what William Taylor (who testified that he had no first hand knowledge) told him and Taylor in turn said he heard it from Tim Morrison (who also testified that he has no first hand knowledge) who in turn got his gossip from Gordon Sondland. So you have Kent testifying about what Taylor said, which was based on what Morrison may or may not have said, based upon what Sondland assumed and guessed.
But, while we're here, the point is not just that Kent said something. It's that Taylor memorialized the conversation in a contemporaneous record. Those contemporaneous documents are highly valued in a legal dispute. Because, for example, while Yermak might be able to claim that he didn't have a particular meeting with Sondland in a particular manner, there is contemporaneous evidence that he had talked to Sondland about the quid pro quo, despite what inference people are taking from his current statements.
--Sam"I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 04:12 PM
|
12 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 06:58 PM
|
||
Started by Sparko, Yesterday, 10:36 AM
|
116 responses
602 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 09:04 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:09 AM
|
16 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:01 PM | ||
Started by Ronson, 06-10-2024, 10:06 AM
|
6 responses
45 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by seanD
06-10-2024, 06:07 PM
|
||
Started by Starlight, 06-10-2024, 01:45 AM
|
45 responses
339 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:31 AM
|
Comment