AMA: Fuzzy Bear

[RINO Tom]

Would you partially or fully agree that the decline of Mainline Protestantism has led to a VERY unhealthy dynamic in American society?  As a Mainliner, I find it quite disturbing for my children's future society that we are inching toward this divisive "us vs. them" thing where religion is not a part of everyday society but rather something reserved for evangelicals and literalists (no offense).  It therefore, obviously, makes me furious to no end when people like Laura Ingram stand up on national TV and trash someone's Mainline Christianity as "not real Christianity" or something, as if MORE division is what Christianity needs heading into the rest of the 21st Century...

[Fuzzy Bear]

Would you partially or fully agree that the decline of Mainline Protestantism has led to a VERY unhealthy dynamic in American society?  As a Mainliner, I find it quite disturbing for my children's future society that we are inching toward this divisive "us vs. them" thing where religion is not a part of everyday society but rather something reserved for evangelicals and literalists (no offense).  It therefore, obviously, makes me furious to no end when people like Laura Ingram stand up on national TV and trash someone's Mainline Christianity as "not real Christianity" or something, as if MORE division is what Christianity needs heading into the rest of the 21st Century...

I would partially agree to this, yes.  Unfortunately, a segment of Mainline Protestantism has begun to question, if not flat-out reject, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ as Savior; beliefs that are central to Christianity. 

That being said, Laura Ingraham's comment is extremely unfair.  People like her wish to spread a FOX News Gospel, which is no more Biblical than the watered down Secularized Gospel that is much of the "Religious Left".  At a certain point, both extremes were "really no Gospel at all". 

America was certainly a more stable society when Mainline denominations held fast to the Gospel as they once did, but Mainline denominations still have churches who have not abandoned the Gospel.  I grew up in that America.  The Lutheran Church, a group that Laura Ingraham may not view as "real Christianity" is where I learned the watershed doctrine of the Church; "Justification by Faith, Alone!".  They still hold to it.  This is, indeed, the watershed doctrine, upon which the Church stands or falls.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sorry for the load of questions...

What kind of entertainment do you consume? Do you consume any contemporary secular entertainment; movies, books, etc? How do you view modern Horror, Sci-fi, and Fantasy movies? Does your faith and political beliefs get in the way of enjoying movies much.

I'm not much of a movie guy.  I don't watch horror movies, however.  Sci-fi and Fantasy movies aren't necessarily at odds with my faith; I just don't care for them a lot.

On more explicitly Christian oriented material, any thoughts? More specifically, what are your experiences with the very different flicks of the original/modern make of Ben-Hur, the recent Noah, and God’s Not Dead?

They are entertaining.  I think God's Not Dead is relevant for today.  Most Biblical movies aren't all that Biblcally accurate, but that doesn't mean they're bad.

[Former President tack50]

I'm a non-religious person I certainly can't relate or disagree (or both) with many of your anwsers.

Anyways, since several questions have been about religion as well: Opinion of the Catholic Church? And what do you think of Pope Francis?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Explain Pentecostalism to me-What are the doctrinal differences between regular Evangelism/charismatic Christianity, Baptism, and Pentecostalism?

Do you know about your own sects’ roots in Azusa street and eventual break with Black Pentecostalist churches? What are your opinions on that? What is your denomination’s official position on Pentecostalism’s founding?[/qupte]

Pentecostalism involves the belief that the full range of Gifts of the Spirit are still manifested in ordinary believers today.  I certainly believe in that.  I am, indeed, a Fire-Baptized Pentecostal, who has manifested the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit by speaking with other tongues.  I have been a tongue-speaker for over 20 years.  My first experience in this did not happen in Church; it happened in a hotel room, when I was on a professional trip and I was praying for my son with two (2) other Brothers, and I began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave me utterance.  That very night, my son began a remission from what was a very serious drug problem.  I wish I could say this was a permanent victory, but it was a victory in a battle, and that battle is not yet over.

Do you and your denomination believe in free will? I ask as you notify that god guides you in some way.

Do you speak in tongues during official worship, or am I thinking of another sect?

We believe in Free Will.

Currently, I attend a Southern Baptist Church.  This has occurred because of deep personal differences with my own church and Pastor.  Sadly, my former Pastor would give many of the folks here all sorts of fodder to bash Pentecostals with.  In a nutshell, the man has cut out all of the ministries of the church and engaged in dishonesty that not everyone knows about (and would not believe it if they were told) because he wishes to preserve his income.  The end result of this is that my church did not have a youth group for my son when he turned 13.  This was unacceptable; it is through a vibrant youth group that young people are socialized into the Body of Christ.

So I joined a Baptist Church that has such a youth group, focused on Christian service and providing an avenue for my son not just to socialize, but to serve as well.  The Baptists do not believe in tongues and they do not believe in the Gifts of the Spirit in operation today as Pentecostals do, but I have come to the conclusion that I'd rather BE Pentecostal (which is an experience, not a denomination) and attend a Baptist Church than attend a church that would cause my son to end up dropping out of church when he becomes an adult (which is what has happened to all of the young people I have seen in my former church over the years).

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm a non-religious person I certainly can't relate or disagree (or both) with many of your anwsers.

Anyways, since several questions have been about religion as well: Opinion of the Catholic Church? And what do you think of Pope Francis?

In a nutshell:  I have serious doctrinal differences with the Catholic Church.  I believe in Justification by Faith, Alone, and I believe that one is saved solely by Faith, and not by some combination of Faith and Works. 

A good deal of Catholic Doctrine is extra-Biblical; it elevates Church tradition and other writings to the level of Scripture, and I certainly do not agree with that.  There is no basis for the Marian Doctrines that elevate Mary beyond how she is presented in Scripture.  (These Doctrines are relatively new in terms of the history of the Catholic Church.)  I certainly do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church, that Peter was the first Pope, etc., and there is no Biblical basis for any of this.

I do, however, find myself far more in line with the Catholic SOCIAL viewpoint than with the social viewpoints of Pentecostals.  They are more critical of capitalism, more questioning of concentrations of wealth, and, in many ways, have not bogged themselves down with some of the hideous Prosperity Preaching that has infected the Evangelical community.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

What inspired the unique username choice of "Fuzzy Bear"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What inspired the unique username choice of "Fuzzy Bear"?

When my wife and I were dating, it was a pet name she gave me one day when I didn't shave, and it stuck.

[KaiserDave]

What do you make of Bob Casey Jr?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

What inspired the unique username choice of "Fuzzy Bear"?

When my wife and I were dating, it was a pet name she gave me one day when I didn't shave, and it stuck.

Certainly a special reason for the name.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you make of Bob Casey Jr?

I would switch my registration to Democratic and campaign for him if he were running for President.  I would vote for him unequivocally over any Republican.

Unfortunately, he will never be on the national ticket, unless he caves on the abortion issue.  I hope he never does.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you believe it is right for families/communities to restrict activities, information, and goods for the “moral good” of that society? Have you ever taken part in ensuring such restrictions for your own family?

With the immense rise of youths being online and using technology, what has been your experience with it? What good or bad has this brought?

You've asked a number of questions, all very relevant, and requiring thought.

These two questions are somewhat linked because technology has brought more information of all sorts to kids, and often at ages where they are not able to fully understand and process this.  This second question is related to the previous question, because technology today makes it ever more difficult to restrict information.  Kids are going to find it out.  My son goes to the skating rink, he skates with his Speed Skating Team, and all the other kids have their own phones (as well as go to secular public high school).  Short of raising a child/teenager in a bubble, a teen is going to find out things about the world at his/her own pace.  My wife and I have tried to keep our sons (both our adult sons and our present teenager) relatively naive and sheltered from as many of the excesses of the World, but there is a limit to how this can occur.

What we have done is several things:  One is that we make clear that certain things are not going to be exhibited in our home.  Movies with endless vile language and/or nudity.  Horror movies.  Movies and TV that condone illicit sexual activity.  Video games with cursing and certain types of graphic violence.  Other kids may have them, watch them, etc, and their parents may be OK with it, but "We don't do that here!".  (That's my stock tag line on things such as this.)

My adult boys grew up in a different era, when other (non-Christian) family was alive, and we had the  issue of other adults doing things they were forbidden to do.  My oldest (and most troubled) son lived with us for 6 years as an adult from 2012-2018 with his wife, and he would tell our youngest (who is his former stepson and her biological son that she lost through child protective services) how his cursing was OK because he was an adult.  (You can't begin to imagine how much I have had to explain to my youngest that my oldest has blown off things he knows are right; he was living with us while he was going to school, and because, quite frankly, he and his troubled wife have never grown up and can't function as adults.)  We have also had to reinforce to him that not everyone he sees and associates with (both other kids and those kids' parents) are Christians.  We have let him know that many of these other kids, and their parents, are not making right or Godly choices, but that it's not his responsibility (or our responsibility) to correct them.  If they are not hurting him, what they do is between them and God (and their parents if the others are children/teens).

My life is dependent on what I do.  Not on what others do.  Atlas is a discussion forum, so I discuss issues that include Biblical morality, but that's in part because this is a discussion forum where all sorts of controversial topics are allowed.  In that vein, I will discuss both what Biblical mores and standards ARE, and how a Christian should respond to situations in a World where others don't accept those mores and standards, and don't wish any of them codified into law.  I'm not going to literally tell other adults how to live their lives, but I also believe that the choices of others have consequences beyond just what happens to them, and that it's not wrong for public policy to address such matters. 

This may be not fully or predictably answering these very relevant questions.  At a personal level, I have, to sum it up, been resigned to my youngest son finding out for himself the issues of the World going on.  My hope is that he is able to see them through a Biblical lens.

[Fuzzy Bear]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

Err...Bill Clinton committed perjury and arguably obstruction of justice.  Even if Ken Starr was a partisan hack (and he most certainly is), Congress' mistake wasn't that the House initiated impeachment proceedings, it was that the Senate didn't remove him from office.  That said, comparing it to the calls for Trump's impeachment is a logical fallacy in the form of false equivalency.  The evidence against Trump is far stronger (and will almost certainly lead to multiple criminal indictments on charges such as obstruction of justice, several different types of conspiracy charges, and quite possibly witness tampering if Trump loses reelection and thus leaves office before the statute of limitations expires), Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation was by any remotely objective measure a model of professionalism and conducted with no evidence of partisan bias, etc, etc, etc.  

Trump is the poster child for situation in which impeachment is warranted and his removal from office by Congress would be more appropriate than it was under during any other Presidency in American history.  Even Nixon, despite obviously deserving to be impeached and removed from office at the time of his resignation, did not warrant impeachment to the same degree that Trump does.  With all due respect, what has happened is that folks like yourself have gotten caught up in the partisanship of the moment leaving many congressional Republicans more concerned about losing a primary by offending Trump than they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rule of law in America.  As long as that remains the case, there won't be a realistic chance of Trump being removed from office by Congress no matter what crimes he commits, but that's simply due to Republican partisanship and cowardice.  Nothing more and nothing less.

[Fuzzy Bear]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

Err...Bill Clinton committed perjury and arguably obstruction of justice.  Even if Ken Starr was a partisan hack (and he most certainly is), Congress' mistake wasn't that the House initiated impeachment proceedings, it was that the Senate didn't remove him from office.  That said, comparing it to the calls for Trump's impeachment is a logical fallacy in the form of false equivalency.  The evidence against Trump is far stronger (and will almost certainly lead to multiple criminal indictments on charges such as obstruction of justice, several different types of conspiracy charges, and quite possibly witness tampering if Trump loses reelection and thus leaves office before the statute of limitations expires), Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation was by any remotely objective measure a model of professionalism and conducted with no evidence of partisan bias, etc, etc, etc.  

Trump is the poster child for situation in which impeachment is warranted and his removal from office by Congress would be more appropriate than it was under during any other Presidency in American history.  Even Nixon, despite obviously deserving to be impeached and removed from office at the time of his resignation, did not warrant impeachment to the same degree that Trump does.  With all due respect, what has happened is that folks like yourself have gotten caught up in the partisanship of the moment leaving many congressional Republicans more concerned about losing a primary by offending Trump than they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rule of law in America.  As long as that remains the case, there won't be a realistic chance of Trump being removed from office by Congress no matter what crimes he commits, but that's simply due to Republican partisanship and cowardice.  Nothing more and nothing less.

You're consistent on your reasoning.  I believe that much of the Starr inquiry was trying to criminalize Clinton's private life and create process offenses.  I believe that much of the Mueller inquiry was trying to criminalize actions that Trump had every right to do (e. g. firing Comey), however controversial.  (I subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz viewpoint on this.

If the House wishes to impeach and the Senate wishes to convict, let it happen.  I am convinced that both matters were tempests in teapots, nowhere near as serious as anything that happened under Nixon (who was a lunatic who hit the sauce hard later in his Presidency) and his crew.  Nowhere near.  I don't agree with your conclusions, but I do agree that you're consistent in your reasoning.  That's a refreshing quality on Atlas, and a rather rare one.  I would agree that there was as much cause to remove Bill Clinton from office as there is to remove Trump, one way or the other.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

Err...Bill Clinton committed perjury and arguably obstruction of justice.  Even if Ken Starr was a partisan hack (and he most certainly is), Congress' mistake wasn't that the House initiated impeachment proceedings, it was that the Senate didn't remove him from office.  That said, comparing it to the calls for Trump's impeachment is a logical fallacy in the form of false equivalency.  The evidence against Trump is far stronger (and will almost certainly lead to multiple criminal indictments on charges such as obstruction of justice, several different types of conspiracy charges, and quite possibly witness tampering if Trump loses reelection and thus leaves office before the statute of limitations expires), Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation was by any remotely objective measure a model of professionalism and conducted with no evidence of partisan bias, etc, etc, etc.  

Trump is the poster child for situation in which impeachment is warranted and his removal from office by Congress would be more appropriate than it was under during any other Presidency in American history.  Even Nixon, despite obviously deserving to be impeached and removed from office at the time of his resignation, did not warrant impeachment to the same degree that Trump does.  With all due respect, what has happened is that folks like yourself have gotten caught up in the partisanship of the moment leaving many congressional Republicans more concerned about losing a primary by offending Trump than they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rule of law in America.  As long as that remains the case, there won't be a realistic chance of Trump being removed from office by Congress no matter what crimes he commits, but that's simply due to Republican partisanship and cowardice.  Nothing more and nothing less.

You're consistent on your reasoning.  I believe that much of the Starr inquiry was trying to criminalize Clinton's private life and create process offenses.  I believe that much of the Mueller inquiry was trying to criminalize actions that Trump had every right to do (e. g. firing Comey), however controversial.  (I subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz viewpoint on this.

If the House wishes to impeach and the Senate wishes to convict, let it happen.  I am convinced that both matters were tempests in teapots, nowhere near as serious as anything that happened under Nixon (who was a lunatic who hit the sauce hard later in his Presidency) and his crew.  Nowhere near.  I don't agree with your conclusions, but I do agree that you're consistent in your reasoning.  That's a refreshing quality on Atlas, and a rather rare one.  I would agree that there was as much cause to remove Bill Clinton from office as there is to remove Trump, one way or the other.

The issue wasn't that Trump fired Comey, as you say he has every right to do so, the issue is that he did with the intent of obstructing [if not killing] a federal criminal investigation which is not something the President is allowed to do.  This is why I would like to hear who in the justice department made the specific decision not to subpoena Trump and what that person's reasoning was for doing so.  Was it Mueller?  Rosenstein?  Whitaker?  Barr?  Someone else?  This is one of many important unanswered questions.  It's possible and appears to be the case that the evidence was so strong that an interview with Trump wasn't necessary to secure an indictment and conviction once Trump left office, but it's still odd.  In other words, it's not the act alone, but the act taken together with the underlying corrupt intent which made Comey's firing obstruction of justice. 

However, I do have to ask in light of the quoted post, let's assume for the sake of discussion that Trump committed obstruction of justice while in office.  Is that something which you feel would warrant impeachment and if not, what mechanism would you suggest using to make sure that the President was not above the law with respect to this felony given that it is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President regardless of the evidence or circumstances. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

Err...Bill Clinton committed perjury and arguably obstruction of justice.  Even if Ken Starr was a partisan hack (and he most certainly is), Congress' mistake wasn't that the House initiated impeachment proceedings, it was that the Senate didn't remove him from office.  That said, comparing it to the calls for Trump's impeachment is a logical fallacy in the form of false equivalency.  The evidence against Trump is far stronger (and will almost certainly lead to multiple criminal indictments on charges such as obstruction of justice, several different types of conspiracy charges, and quite possibly witness tampering if Trump loses reelection and thus leaves office before the statute of limitations expires), Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation was by any remotely objective measure a model of professionalism and conducted with no evidence of partisan bias, etc, etc, etc.  

Trump is the poster child for situation in which impeachment is warranted and his removal from office by Congress would be more appropriate than it was under during any other Presidency in American history.  Even Nixon, despite obviously deserving to be impeached and removed from office at the time of his resignation, did not warrant impeachment to the same degree that Trump does.  With all due respect, what has happened is that folks like yourself have gotten caught up in the partisanship of the moment leaving many congressional Republicans more concerned about losing a primary by offending Trump than they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rule of law in America.  As long as that remains the case, there won't be a realistic chance of Trump being removed from office by Congress no matter what crimes he commits, but that's simply due to Republican partisanship and cowardice.  Nothing more and nothing less.

You're consistent on your reasoning.  I believe that much of the Starr inquiry was trying to criminalize Clinton's private life and create process offenses.  I believe that much of the Mueller inquiry was trying to criminalize actions that Trump had every right to do (e. g. firing Comey), however controversial.  (I subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz viewpoint on this.)

If the House wishes to impeach and the Senate wishes to convict, let it happen.  I am convinced that both matters were tempests in teapots, nowhere near as serious as anything that happened under Nixon (who was a lunatic who hit the sauce hard later in his Presidency) and his crew.  Nowhere near.  I don't agree with your conclusions, but I do agree that you're consistent in your reasoning.  That's a refreshing quality on Atlas, and a rather rare one.  I would agree that there was as much cause to remove Bill Clinton from office as there is to remove Trump, one way or the other.

The issue wasn't that Trump fired Comey, as you say he has every right to do so, the issue is that he did with the intent of obstructing [if not killing] a federal criminal investigation which is not something the President is allowed to do.  This is why I would like to hear who in the justice department made the specific decision not to subpoena Trump and what that person's reasoning was for doing so.  Was it Mueller?  Rosenstein?  Whitaker?  Barr?  Someone else?  This is one of many important unanswered questions.  It's possible and appears to be the case that the evidence was so strong that an interview with Trump wasn't necessary to secure an indictment and conviction once Trump left office, but it's still odd.  In other words, it's not the act alone, but the act taken together with the underlying corrupt intent which made Comey's firing obstruction of justice. 

However, I do have to ask in light of the quoted post, let's assume for the sake of discussion that Trump committed obstruction of justice while in office.  Is that something which you feel would warrant impeachment and if not, what mechanism would you suggest using to make sure that the President was not above the law with respect to this felony given that it is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President regardless of the evidence or circumstances. 

To give a quick answer:  If Mueller had chosen to name Trump an unindicted co-conspirator in a crime, that would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.  Mueller could clearly have done so, but he did not. 

If he thought that there was evidence out there that would rise to the level of Probably Cause that Trump obstructed justice, then Mueller should not have concluded his investigation.  He was not under pressure to finish, and there was plenty of folks who would have run interference for him if the investigation needed to continue..  But Mueller didn't continue the investigation.  He wrapped it up, and he did so with the presumption that the investigation was finished. 

Anyway, that's my standard.  A completed investigation and no finding of being an Unindicted Co-Conspirator to Obstruction of Justice.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Opinion of the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

[...]

I find the Mueller case against him rather underwhelming and unconvincing, and I see the investigation against him as folks investigating Trump, and not investigating a crime, and folks should be concerned about that concept.  America is a place where we don't investigate folks just because we're curious.

[...]

Since you mention this as a reason for your support, it's worth mentioning that Republicans aren't exactly any better on this. There is a long trail of this behavior from them. They are arguably worse. And in this situation, it's not like Democrats put Mueller into place. Keep in mind that this investigation was started by a Republican and is run by a Republican. If all of this is important to you, then I don't understand why it'd drive you to Trump/Republicans. That barely makes any sense.

In all likelihood, Trump is a criminal, whether its from Russia shenanigans or a long history of shady and illegal business dealings, particularly over the past 20 years. Just saying that, regardless of what you think of him now, there's a reasonable chance that he came into office as one of the biggest criminals of our modern presidents. I dunno about you but I wouldn't want to be associated with that, and that is putting aside everything else wrong with Trump.

I highlighted a portion of your quote because that's the part I heatedly disagree with.

It's a statement with no basis.  Trump has never been charged with a crime, has never been investigated by a grand jury, and no one has come close to anything like that in all his years in public life and business.  We don't look at folks and say, "He looks like a sleazeball; let's investigate him!", but that's exactly what you're suggesting.  Shady and illegal business dealings?  Where?  What?  Anything outside of civil lawsuits?  

We don't "investigate" people because we don't like their style.  We investigate crimes and the persons that the investigation of those crimes suggest may have committed them.  The highlighted portion of your quote is the part of the opposition to Trump that I view as more dangerous than anything Trump may have said or done, because making THAT concept as our "new normal" will raise "I don't like this guy; he seems sleazy!" to the level of Probable Cause.  People are OK with this only because they've talked themselves into believing Trump to be the new Hitler.

All of that is the real danger in this.  Oppose Trump's policies.  (I oppose some of them.)  Campaign against him.  (My vote is up for grabs.)  I resist the idea of investigating persons when we have no evidence that an actual crime has occurred.

Ken Starr says hello.

The investigations into Bill Clinton's affairs were a travesty.  Things that should not have occurred.  I did not support impeachment of Clinton, any more than I support impeachment of Trump.

Impeachment is a genie that has popped out of the bottle.  We are now far to unafraid to seriously consider it simply because we don't like a President, and where we have all sorts of wahoos on the internet from both ends of the Spectrum talking about how someone is committing "treason" because they are "violating the Constitution" (e. g. Obama's Executive Orders and the hue and cry about them).  This wasn't so before Nixon, but threatening to impeach a President does have its plusses at the ballot box for a party.

Err...Bill Clinton committed perjury and arguably obstruction of justice.  Even if Ken Starr was a partisan hack (and he most certainly is), Congress' mistake wasn't that the House initiated impeachment proceedings, it was that the Senate didn't remove him from office.  That said, comparing it to the calls for Trump's impeachment is a logical fallacy in the form of false equivalency.  The evidence against Trump is far stronger (and will almost certainly lead to multiple criminal indictments on charges such as obstruction of justice, several different types of conspiracy charges, and quite possibly witness tampering if Trump loses reelection and thus leaves office before the statute of limitations expires), Robert Mueller's special counsel investigation was by any remotely objective measure a model of professionalism and conducted with no evidence of partisan bias, etc, etc, etc.  

Trump is the poster child for situation in which impeachment is warranted and his removal from office by Congress would be more appropriate than it was under during any other Presidency in American history.  Even Nixon, despite obviously deserving to be impeached and removed from office at the time of his resignation, did not warrant impeachment to the same degree that Trump does.  With all due respect, what has happened is that folks like yourself have gotten caught up in the partisanship of the moment leaving many congressional Republicans more concerned about losing a primary by offending Trump than they are about upholding the Constitution and protecting the rule of law in America.  As long as that remains the case, there won't be a realistic chance of Trump being removed from office by Congress no matter what crimes he commits, but that's simply due to Republican partisanship and cowardice.  Nothing more and nothing less.

You're consistent on your reasoning.  I believe that much of the Starr inquiry was trying to criminalize Clinton's private life and create process offenses.  I believe that much of the Mueller inquiry was trying to criminalize actions that Trump had every right to do (e. g. firing Comey), however controversial.  (I subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz viewpoint on this.)

If the House wishes to impeach and the Senate wishes to convict, let it happen.  I am convinced that both matters were tempests in teapots, nowhere near as serious as anything that happened under Nixon (who was a lunatic who hit the sauce hard later in his Presidency) and his crew.  Nowhere near.  I don't agree with your conclusions, but I do agree that you're consistent in your reasoning.  That's a refreshing quality on Atlas, and a rather rare one.  I would agree that there was as much cause to remove Bill Clinton from office as there is to remove Trump, one way or the other.

The issue wasn't that Trump fired Comey, as you say he has every right to do so, the issue is that he did with the intent of obstructing [if not killing] a federal criminal investigation which is not something the President is allowed to do.  This is why I would like to hear who in the justice department made the specific decision not to subpoena Trump and what that person's reasoning was for doing so.  Was it Mueller?  Rosenstein?  Whitaker?  Barr?  Someone else?  This is one of many important unanswered questions.  It's possible and appears to be the case that the evidence was so strong that an interview with Trump wasn't necessary to secure an indictment and conviction once Trump left office, but it's still odd.  In other words, it's not the act alone, but the act taken together with the underlying corrupt intent which made Comey's firing obstruction of justice. 

However, I do have to ask in light of the quoted post, let's assume for the sake of discussion that Trump committed obstruction of justice while in office.  Is that something which you feel would warrant impeachment and if not, what mechanism would you suggest using to make sure that the President was not above the law with respect to this felony given that it is DOJ policy not to indict a sitting President regardless of the evidence or circumstances. 

To give a quick answer:  If Mueller had chosen to name Trump an unindicted co-conspirator in a crime, that would be sufficient grounds for impeachment.  Mueller could clearly have done so, but he did not. 

If he thought that there was evidence out there that would rise to the level of Probably Cause that Trump obstructed justice, then Mueller should not have concluded his investigation.  He was not under pressure to finish, and there was plenty of folks who would have run interference for him if the investigation needed to continue..  But Mueller didn't continue the investigation.  He wrapped it up, and he did so with the presumption that the investigation was finished. 

Anyway, that's my standard.  A completed investigation and no finding of being an Unindicted Co-Conspirator to Obstruction of Justice.

Well...that would've required a conspiracy to obstruct justice, so if Trump was the only person involved in a particular scheme to obstruct justice, then Mueller would've been unable to name him as an unindicted co-conspirator, at least that's my understanding.  A conspiracy requires that there be at least two participants which there probably weren't with a number of these things (such as Comey's firing).

[heatcharger]

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Opinion of the Family Research Council and Tony Perkins?

They're Lobbyists and Politicians. 

I agree with most (though not all) of their political positions.  I don't think much of a lot of the folks that have been affiliated with them, but let's be clear about this:  The Family Research Council is NOT A MINISTRY, it is a LOBBYING organization.  This is an important distinction that needs to be emphasized.

I don't support such organizations, although I understand why many Christians do.  I do consider their efforts to divert energies from spreading the Gospel (which I believe to be the ultimate solution to all of America's social ills).  Christ never led a political movement and he never directed his followers to lead a political movement.  Christ directed his followers to preach His Gospel to every creature, to be His Witnesses in Jerusalem, and in Judea and Samaria, and into the uttermost parts of the Earth.

These types of organizations are someone else's schtick.  The organization of this type that I believe serves a viable purpose is the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) led by Jay Sekulow.  These organizations raise decent sums of money, but they end up being lightning rods and poor advocates for the Gospel.  (The personal scandals of the Family Research Council hasn't helped, either.}

[SingingAnalyst]

What's on your "bucket list"?

[Fuzzy Bear]

What's on your "bucket list"?

1.  I wish to become an ordained minister without going broke and accumulating student debt.

2.  I wish to visit Lincoln, NE, where the National Roller Skating Museum has a Hall of Fame.  My wife's Dad is an inductee and part of the original group of inductees.

3.  I wish to run for public office, but I can't see myself running for anything but a non-partisan office.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Are you around different religions that aren’t irreligious thought or Christianity? How do you view them?

I've been around other religions all of my life.  Most of my oldest friends from back in the day are Jewish (although one of them actually became an Evangelical Christian, and one never really believed in God and converted to Catholicism when he got married because he was marrying into a large Italian Catholic family. 

When I was 27, I quit being an active alcoholic and became a sober one.  At that time, I had strayed from the faith to where I questioned what I believed.  It was in AA where I met lots of folks who went to Unity.  My best friend from there was a strong believer in the Unity School of Christianity's doctrine; he was in Ministry School at Unity Village when he was diagnosed with cancer; he died in 2008.  When I rededicated myself the Christ in 1993, I would soon discover that he and I had a very different idea of who Jesus was and is, and that those ideas had very different implications.  He thought it positively awful, bordering on child abuse (he was serious) that people would tell children that those who rejected Christ went to Hell.  (I, of course, believe that the merciful thing to do for kids is to warn them, so it doesn't happen for them, but he certainly didn't see it that way.) 

My time in AA introduced me to folks who believed all sorts of things.  Some adopted beliefs to be avant garde.  Most prayed to their "higher power", went to church once in a while, and generally claimed to be "tolerant" of people whose idea of God was something else then theirs.  You got flak if you gave your "higher power" a name like "Jesus", but if you called your higher power "God" you were generally safe.  If you were an Evangelical Christian in AA, you stuck out like a sore thumb, and I was not an Evangelical Christian in those years, but there were a few that would be bold in their witness.  I remember one who was talking to me and he found out that I was living with a girlfriend out of wedlock (indeed, she was married to someone else, albeit a paper marriage of convenience).  He flat-out told me that God couldn't bless me in this, and told me that this was Satan working against me.  "Satan don't want you at the Foot of the Cross!" he said, and even though I certainly did little more than humor this guy at that time, I remember that encounter to this day.  (God was looking to get me even when I was being a knucklehead.)

When I worked as a substance abuse counselor (I still have my credential.), I worked with a few Christians and a bunch of folks who were adherents of Eastern religions and New Age philosophies.  Much of substance abuse treatment borders on its own New Age religion of a sort.  These folks were often into aromatherapy, chanting and positive affirmations, yoga, and much eastern meditation.  One of my trainers in this field was very much a New Ager, but he did teach me techniques in mindfulness meditation in which one can learn to note what is on one's mind without emotionally reacting to it (a skill addicts and alcoholics need badly to help them maintain sobriety).  I always had a check in my spirit about such practices, and as I matured as a Christian, I came to learn that one of the worst thing a Christian can do is "empty their mind"; it is in those periods when Satan will enter your mind and reek havoc (and there is certainly Scriptural justification for this teaching).  Aside for the progressive demands for obtaining additional education coupled with not great pay, the allure of counseling as a career disappeared.     

I didn't think I'd be this autobiographical, but sometimes I surprise myself.

[junior chįmp]

Opinion of Lawton Chilles?