Foxx

right. that is exactly why there should be no protection of immunity. the claim(s) as well as the motivations behind said claim(s) need to be scrutinized to ascertain whether or not the claim(s) have validity.

today is palindrome day. 02022020

new DNC/propaganda press talking points. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1223787560914313217 ******************************************************** correct. however, as we see with the narrative spewed by the Left and eaten up by the likes of Bob, the whistle blower must be protected at all costs because, meh #orangemanbad. what they are effectively doing is running cover by making the claim that he can't be outed. that narrative has to be destroyed.

no where in there does it state that whistle blowers are afforded any sort of anonymity. protection against retaliation, yes, anonymity, no.

the USPS is a walking dinosaur, it just doesn't know it yet. the need for a government run daily mail six days a week system is obsolete. it could very easily be cut back to a two day a week delivery system at this point and still function on a level that would satisfy the nation. it is a sad state that a state run program has to resort to spam to prop it up (for without it, it wouldn't be able to survive). it should be illegal for the state to force unwanted spam upon it's populace.

okay, great. i didn't think you knew what was said.

he's trying to drag you down to his level so he can't beat you to death with his stupidity club.

wow.

huh. i always thought it was a cigar.

Bob, one last time... here is the last sentence of your post that i took contention with... "Would you want your name and address exposed even on this board ? There are enough borderline posters here that I think you would be in some greater danger. " if you are claiming that you are making a point of, 'increasing danger' then you have a very poor way of wording what you are trying to say. your subsequent attempts were, in my opinion, weaksauce and didn't spell out very clearly your opposition to my contention. further, if we attempt to put your last sentence in greater context, the first sentence states thus: " No greater danger by publicizing it more? Are you sure? OK, then why are you doing it? What is gained by publicizing him/her?" it seems readily apparent that even with the greater context included, you were plainly comparing apples to oranges. however, now that you have made it clear what was in your head and not necessarily on the board, while addressing my contention with a modicum of adequacy we can move on with common civil discourse. of which i believe was 'increased danger'. to wit, i did address that in what may have been my first post to you (may not be, but I did address it with you in one of my posts). that being, there is considerable question as to whether he is legally considered to be a 'whistle blower'. additionally, i stated that i did not believe him to be in any more danger than any of the other deep state coup plotters that have already been exposed.

not, i repeat, not the coronavirus. A 'highly pathogenic strain' of H5N1 bird flu has been reported in China's Hunan province

if the other two FISA's are found to have been deficient, the entire Mueller report is null and void. fruit of the poisoned tree. it will then call into question the entire #moderdaywatergate operation.

this is bad... https://twitter.com/Pismo_B/status/1223275776163794945

@Bob in Mich please read the included article. it may help with your, 'understanding' or lack thereof. https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1223657481441812480 i'm sure your 'selective' understanding will commit you to not believe the 'whistle blower' in the article though.

you've seen his exact words? please post a link, i would like to see them myself. TYIA

never mind that he is an avowed Democrat. whataboutism at it's finest. tibs would be proud.

i pointed it out exactly. i even went back and retrieved the post to quote the portion i contested. but, you can't understand that because your brian is broken beyond repair.

civil discourse 101 for the mentally challenged: poster makes an argument (post). subsequently, a different poster challenges said argument by addressing certain points of said argument made by the aforementioned poster. aforementioned poster then addresses contended aspects of the responding poster. whereby, once done, the aforementioned poster can then expand the argument. however, if the aforementioned poster does not address the contested arguments the subsequent poster makes, there exists a gap in the progression of the logical order of civil discourse. by omitting the rebuttal, the aforementioned poster is attempting to control the narrative, that is not how civil discourse works, nor should it. with liberals, controlling any discussion is paramount. it also includes many different tactics to 'allow' them to steer said discussion to fit into a certain narrative they wish to portray. of course, being brian addled often prevents one from understanding exactly what they are doing with regard.

Bob, you can try and change what you were saying by moving the goalposts. what isn't changed is that i was referring to your comparison of B-Man and a public figure. you tried to evade that by claiming i was off in your making an apples and oranges comparison. further, you subsequently tried moving the goalposts even further apart. your brian is riddled, Bob. at this point there is no conversing with you because you refuse to follow any logical order of progression in civil discourse. rather, you would prefer to talk one in circles. i am not interested in that kind of discourse, Bob. there is a reason why no one can get through to you. you argue 1 + 1 = 3 . when someone points out to you that 1 + 1 = 2, you change the subject to, 1 x 1 = 3. it is fallacious in it's very theory but you refuse to see that and obfuscate through the smoke filled cobwebs of your attic trying to drag everyone else down to your idiotic level. when you began posting here, i ignored the urges to engage you because this pattern was readily apparent. however, i thought i saw an opportunity to perhaps clear away some of that smoke for you, i was wrong, Bob. you are hopeless, enjoy your delusion, Bob.

Kenny Rogers?

you might need to add a little sauce.

Bob, you can not see that trying to equivocate B-Man with a public figure is apples and oranges, Bob? you made the equivocation, Bob. perhaps you need to go back and reread your post. i l l o g i c a l , B o b.

Bob, you give what you think are your opinions. and they may be, however in reality, they were implanted there by the propaganda press of the Left. how do i know? you do not, in any way shape or form, display any signs of cognitive ability that you are thinking for yourself. i understand that it is tough to realize that you are a tool for the Left, NLP is a very real and strong tool in their box that they employ. you apparently are not tired of having been wrong for three, going on four years now. it's okay though, i do know that banging one's head up against the wall will eventually bleed through and even the thickest skull will realize that it hurts. i am just trying to help you along, Bob. by all means, carry on with your delusion.

your brian truly is broken. you are attempting to equate B-Man with a public figure. just stop would you. you are so far out in the weeds that any semblance with logic is completely void. you're hardly recognizable at this point.