AMA: Fuzzy Bear

[Virginiá]

[...]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you think about William Jennings Bryan?

Had he not involved himself in the Scopes Trial, he'd be the Hero of the Bernie Bots today.  

We need a William Jennings Bryan today.  I'm not sure, however, that the real William Jennings Bryan would have been a successful President.  He wasn't the executive type, and his tenure as Secretary of State was short and unremarkable.  That being said, I'd be willing to take that chance and vote for Bryan.  He stood for the average citizen against organized wealth, and no President has really done this since Franklin Roosevelt.

[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.

[Sestak]

[...]

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.

[diptheriadan]

What do you think about Huey Long?

[Virginiá]

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

That's fair, but given the type of person he is and the stink of money laundering surrounding him, and all the information we've learned about his business, and the already shady nature of NY real estate, I think it's a reasonable bet to make. The way Trump behaves, the constant lying, the grandiose and narcicist personality that thinks he can do whatever he wants without consequence, such as scamming people with a fake university or stiffing numerous contractors, that doesn't exactly give me the portrait of a law-abiding citizen.

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.

Again, I'll reiterate that this entire investigation started because of the actions of Republican members of his administration. And as for Congress, even you have to admit how much a partisan lawmaker loathes to even go near investigating a president who is in the same party. This isn't exactly a R or D thing. It's a politician thing. It's why they won't conduct even remotely the same oversight of their "guy" as they would if they were from the other party. So it really says something that we have Congressional investigations (even if stymied and corrupted by people like Nunes) and a criminal investigation by a special counsel. Trump brought all that on himself, and if there was really nothing there, this investigation would be going nowhere. But we have established Russia meddling in the election, and indictments came from that - meddling that Trump for months vehemently denied, too.

I get that Democrats obviously want this investigation (for good reason), maybe you don't agree with that, but I don't understand why you're actually holding that up as a reason for partisan support. It's not like a Democrat installed Mueller and is keeping this going. Trump surrounded himself with very shady people who did shady things, and then Trump went and did shady things that made people suspect his motives, and that led to Mueller. This is all on him.

This is what I'm confused about from your statement. Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. I also don't understand why him being the target of what you perceive to be an unfair investigation would make you want to support him either, although I concede you could have brought that point up as just something that bugs you but isn't related to your support.


-

Anywho, I don't want to suck the oxygen out of your thread bickering about this issue, but I really couldn't disagree with you more on what seems like just about everything related to it. It's pretty clear we both see him in some extraordinarily different ways. I can't wrap my head around it. So I guess we'll see when/if a final report comes out.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

What were your favorite bands growing up?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

That's fair, but given the type of person he is and the stink of money laundering surrounding him, and all the information we've learned about his business, and the already shady nature of NY real estate, I think it's a reasonable bet to make. The way Trump behaves, the constant lying, the grandiose and narcicist personality that thinks he can do whatever he wants without consequence, such as scamming people with a fake university or stiffing numerous contractors, that doesn't exactly give me the portrait of a law-abiding citizen.

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.

Again, I'll reiterate that this entire investigation started because of the actions of Republican members of his administration. And as for Congress, even you have to admit how much a partisan lawmaker loathes to even go near investigating a president who is in the same party. This isn't exactly a R or D thing. It's a politician thing. It's why they won't conduct even remotely the same oversight of their "guy" as they would if they were from the other party. So it really says something that we have Congressional investigations (even if stymied and corrupted by people like Nunes) and a criminal investigation by a special counsel. Trump brought all that on himself, and if there was really nothing there, this investigation would be going nowhere. But we have established Russia meddling in the election, and indictments came from that - meddling that Trump for months vehemently denied, too.

I get that Democrats obviously want this investigation (for good reason), maybe you don't agree with that, but I don't understand why you're actually holding that up as a reason for partisan support. It's not like a Democrat installed Mueller and is keeping this going. Trump surrounded himself with very shady people who did shady things, and then Trump went and did shady things that made people suspect his motives, and that led to Mueller. This is all on him.

This is what I'm confused about from your statement. Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. I also don't understand why him being the target of what you perceive to be an unfair investigation would make you want to support him either, although I concede you could have brought that point up as just something that bugs you but isn't related to your support.


-

Anywho, I don't want to suck the oxygen out of your thread bickering about this issue, but I really couldn't disagree with you more on what seems like just about everything related to it. It's pretty clear we both see him in some extraordinarily different ways. I can't wrap my head around it. So I guess we'll see when/if a final report comes out.

Could we not say the same about Barack Obama and his associations with Tony Reszko?  Or the insider crap he must have soiled his hands with while a member of the IL State Senate, a land of uncommon virtue?  Or Harry Truman, who owed his political career to Boss Pendergast of Kansas City?  Or LBJ, whose career was salvaged and made possible by a stolen Senate primary in 1948, courtesy of the most sordid power brokers in Texas (George Parr, Herman Brown)?

I see no real evidence that Trump is, somehow, more slimy than any of these folks.  If we were to open an investigation into Trump, we may or may not confirm that, but we might do the same if we looked into the Bushes or Obama, or if we had "just investigated BILL Clinton" in 1992.  That's not the way we do things in America, but that's what Trump's enemies in both parties wish to do in his case.

I fully understand why people don't like Trump, but he was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the rules.  If you don't like the EC, that's another conversation, and I do believe it isn't good that the guy with almost 3 million fewer PV can win the Presidency, but THAT really is another conversation.  Trump was elected by the people, and the EV/PV thing is beside the point here.

I do, very much, believe that much of the "investigation" of Trump is a matter of Establishment Politicians of both parties upset because Trump's election was, very much, a Hostile Takeover of the GOP in the corporate sense.  THAT'S the real issue for many; the fact that Trump took over THEIR party.  The other is that Trump has no regard for insiders, and has freely exposed (sometimes for mere kicks) their secrets.  And he's made crude comments.  But all of those things, while often offensive, have often been RIGHT.  Even that's beside the point. 

It is not good when angered elites in Congress and other institutions can bring about an investigation about a person elected President, when there is no probable cause to show he committed a crime, and sic the investigative process on him.  Let the political process take care of Trump.  Vote him out in 2020, vote his party out in 2018, but STOP DELEGITIMIZING HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM.  That's my bottom line.  Deal with him like any other Republican President.  He got to where he is fair and square, and it's a dreamworld falsehood to say otherwise.  The process of investigating Trump hurts democracy more than it does Trump.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you think about Huey Long?

He's someone I once wrote an extensive paper on, but I'm conflicted about him today.

Long certainly brought Louisiana into the 20th century with his populist reforms, but his legacy of corruption can't be ignored.  He tolerated many grafters, and while some of the prosecutions of Longites after Huey's death were political, they were political only in the sense that their side was corrupt as well.

The other conflict I have about Long was that his family heirs were often quite the opposite of Huey.  His son, Russell Long, though a Democrat, was a pro-corporation signer of the Southern Manifesto.  Earl Long was a controversial Governor, and considered a liberal for Louisiana, but he hardly advocated the things Huey Long advocated.  Former Congressman Speedy Long (D-LA) was a segregationist reactionary, although Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA) was a moderate liberal and a National Democrat.  There are Longs in Louisiana politics today who have become Republicans.

None of the Long Family in politics ever picked up Huey's Share the Wealth program.  Huey, himself, didn't live to get a full chance to enact everything he wanted.  There was much talk of how Huey wanted to be the Dictator of the US, which I don't believe.  But I do wonder if, had he lived, he'd have ended up being a corporate type like his son, Russell, with the only mitigating factor being that the agreements raised would be more on Huey's terms.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What were your favorite bands growing up?

As a teenager, I discovered 1950s Doo Wop harmonies, and those groups were my favorites.  There were a number of them, but some of my faves were Dion and the Belmonts, The Five Discs, The Tokens, The Skyliners, Jimmy Gallagher and the Passions.  I also loved Little Richard and Fats Domino.  And I loved Sha Na Na as a modern group.  My favorite current group was ABBA.

When the Beatles arrived in America, it brought about a Continental Divide in pop music.  After 1964, most Top 40 AM radio stopped playing music prior to the Beatles.  In 1969, you might here an old Supremes or Rolling Stones or early Beatles song as "solid gold" on the radio, but you would NEVER hear an Elvis Presley or a Chuck Berry tune.  No Little Richard either.  It was around that time that a few folks (most notably Richard Nader) discovered that many people weren't hearing what they wanted to hear on the radio, and he began revival series and concerts of fifties groups, many of them who were still alive.  I LOVED those melodies as a 12 year old, and I wasn't afraid to be different in this regard. 

[H. Ross Peron]

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

I wanted to ask about your quote from this thread: namely, what is your view of the Roman Catholic Church? Do you believe that it is still a true Christian denomination despite significant theological errors or do you believe it to be a false church whose members are in danger of damnation?

Are you a Young Earth or an Old Earth Creationist? Your previous statements seems to theistic evolution as a possibility.

What is your view of Bernie Sanders? Since you seem willing to vote for certain Democrats, might you not have a relatively positive view of Sanders since he is relatively willing to reach out to people who disagree with him on various issues due to his economically populist views?

[OSR stands with Israel]

- How would you rank Presidents since 1945

- How much of Bernie's Economic Platform do you support

[Fuzzy Bear]

- How would you rank Presidents since 1945

- How much of Bernie's Economic Platform do you support

Post-FDR, I suppose:

Eisenhower (a surprise, given my parents were BIG fans of Adlai Stevenson)
Truman
Carter
Ford
Reagan (correct on foreign policy, wrong on economics)
Clinton
Obama (he DID stabilize the economy and deserves more credit for that than he gets)
LBJ (he'd be higher were it not for Vietnam
JFK (somewhat overrated in terms of actual accomplishment)
Bush 41
Bush 43
Nixon (everything that people say Trump is)

I do not agree with Sanders on his overall economic policy, but I do agree on healthcare.  I have to think about much of the rest of this.  I personally believe that if there had been universal healthcare since the Truman years, we would never have had the social divides we have on issues such as welfare statism and SSM (which is driven, in part, by the healthcare issue).  Having universal healthcare would have ratcheted down much of the Culture Wars and made us, truly, a more tolerant nation (in the vein that tolerance is supposed to be applied).

[MATTROSE94]

- How would you rank Presidents since 1945

- How much of Bernie's Economic Platform do you support

Post-FDR, I suppose:

Eisenhower (a surprise, given my parents were BIG fans of Adlai Stevenson)
Truman
Carter
Ford
Reagan (correct on foreign policy, wrong on economics)
Clinton
Obama (he DID stabilize the economy and deserves more credit for that than he gets)
LBJ (he'd be higher were it not for Vietnam
JFK (somewhat overrated in terms of actual accomplishment)
Bush 41
Bush 43
Nixon (everything that people say Trump is)

I do not agree with Sanders on his overall economic policy, but I do agree on healthcare.  I have to think about much of the rest of this.  I personally believe that if there had been universal healthcare since the Truman years, we would never have had the social divides we have on issues such as welfare statism and SSM (which is driven, in part, by the healthcare issue).  Having universal healthcare would have ratcheted down much of the Culture Wars and made us, truly, a more tolerant nation (in the vein that tolerance is supposed to be applied).

How would you rank Trump on the list after he leaves office in 5 1/2 years?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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

That's fair, but given the type of person he is and the stink of money laundering surrounding him, and all the information we've learned about his business, and the already shady nature of NY real estate, I think it's a reasonable bet to make. The way Trump behaves, the constant lying, the grandiose and narcicist personality that thinks he can do whatever he wants without consequence, such as scamming people with a fake university or stiffing numerous contractors, that doesn't exactly give me the portrait of a law-abiding citizen.

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.

Again, I'll reiterate that this entire investigation started because of the actions of Republican members of his administration. And as for Congress, even you have to admit how much a partisan lawmaker loathes to even go near investigating a president who is in the same party. This isn't exactly a R or D thing. It's a politician thing. It's why they won't conduct even remotely the same oversight of their "guy" as they would if they were from the other party. So it really says something that we have Congressional investigations (even if stymied and corrupted by people like Nunes) and a criminal investigation by a special counsel. Trump brought all that on himself, and if there was really nothing there, this investigation would be going nowhere. But we have established Russia meddling in the election, and indictments came from that - meddling that Trump for months vehemently denied, too.

I get that Democrats obviously want this investigation (for good reason), maybe you don't agree with that, but I don't understand why you're actually holding that up as a reason for partisan support. It's not like a Democrat installed Mueller and is keeping this going. Trump surrounded himself with very shady people who did shady things, and then Trump went and did shady things that made people suspect his motives, and that led to Mueller. This is all on him.

This is what I'm confused about from your statement. Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong. I also don't understand why him being the target of what you perceive to be an unfair investigation would make you want to support him either, although I concede you could have brought that point up as just something that bugs you but isn't related to your support.


-

Anywho, I don't want to suck the oxygen out of your thread bickering about this issue, but I really couldn't disagree with you more on what seems like just about everything related to it. It's pretty clear we both see him in some extraordinarily different ways. I can't wrap my head around it. So I guess we'll see when/if a final report comes out.

Could we not say the same about Barack Obama and his associations with Tony Reszko?  Or the insider crap he must have soiled his hands with while a member of the IL State Senate, a land of uncommon virtue?  Or Harry Truman, who owed his political career to Boss Pendergast of Kansas City?  Or LBJ, whose career was salvaged and made possible by a stolen Senate primary in 1948, courtesy of the most sordid power brokers in Texas (George Parr, Herman Brown)?

I see no real evidence that Trump is, somehow, more slimy than any of these folks.  If we were to open an investigation into Trump, we may or may not confirm that, but we might do the same if we looked into the Bushes or Obama, or if we had "just investigated BILL Clinton" in 1992.  That's not the way we do things in America, but that's what Trump's enemies in both parties wish to do in his case.

I fully understand why people don't like Trump, but he was elected in a series of free and fair elections, by the rules.  If you don't like the EC, that's another conversation, and I do believe it isn't good that the guy with almost 3 million fewer PV can win the Presidency, but THAT really is another conversation.  Trump was elected by the people, and the EV/PV thing is beside the point here.

I do, very much, believe that much of the "investigation" of Trump is a matter of Establishment Politicians of both parties upset because Trump's election was, very much, a Hostile Takeover of the GOP in the corporate sense.  THAT'S the real issue for many; the fact that Trump took over THEIR party.  The other is that Trump has no regard for insiders, and has freely exposed (sometimes for mere kicks) their secrets.  And he's made crude comments.  But all of those things, while often offensive, have often been RIGHT.  Even that's beside the point.  

It is not good when angered elites in Congress and other institutions can bring about an investigation about a person elected President, when there is no probable cause to show he committed a crime, and sic the investigative process on him.  Let the political process take care of Trump.  Vote him out in 2020, vote his party out in 2018, but STOP DELEGITIMIZING HIM BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE HIM.  That's my bottom line.  Deal with him like any other Republican President.  He got to where he is fair and square, and it's a dreamworld falsehood to say otherwise.  The process of investigating Trump hurts democracy more than it does Trump.

No, actually, you couldn’t.  There’s proof beyond reasonable doubt that Trump committed obstruction of justice in multiple instances and he is currently an (as of yet) un-indicted co-conspirator in a conspiracy to commit felony campaign finance violations and bank fraud.  If Trump loses re-election, he’s gonna go to jail and rightly so.

[PSOL]

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.

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?

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?

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?


Have you seen irreligious thought come in your community more often than in the past? Have you seen switching of religions be a more common factor where you’ve been? Why do you think Christianity is declining among former adherents here?

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

What are your opinions on anti-capitalism and those claiming to adhere to it? Do you have a good grasp on what Socialism is by your own research or by conservative media? What are your, and your community’s, opinions on the DSA or more ideologically defined groups believing in Communism or Anarchism? Has public perception changed wildly over the times, or is it the same? Do you think those saying they are Democratic Socialists believe in it or are just branding?

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?

Finally, not a question, but I will say that my previous comments calling you a huckster were a bit too much. I usually don’t throw insults like that often, so I came on this to apologize for such unnecessary flinging of labels.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Would you vote Dem in 2020 if the D ticket was John Breaux/Zell Miller?

[H. Ross Peron]

But, of course, the Inquisition was the act of an apostate Church, acting against Scripture, for which there was a Reformation to bring Christianity back to the Gospel.  You know this as well.  

Chrsitians view children as a life created by God, with an immortal soul all its own.  This is a bottom line.  You say that "Inflexible purism brings the worst cruelty".  An interesting choice of language.

https://youtu.be/QUr0jCbcPNc

Is this not the worst cruelty?  I believe that the unborn child that feels pain would think so.  It is cruelty we would prohibit being done to an animal.  That we have this is the result of the Inflexible Purity of the Feminist Left and their political allies, who have viewed abortion as their "power" issue.  So, please, if we're going to use that concept, my example is far more current than something that happened in Medieval Europe.

I wanted to ask about your quote from this thread: namely, what is your view of the Roman Catholic Church? Do you believe that it is still a true Christian denomination despite significant theological errors or do you believe it to be a false church whose members are in danger of damnation?

Are you a Young Earth or an Old Earth Creationist? Your previous statements seems to theistic evolution as a possibility.

What is your view of Bernie Sanders? Since you seem willing to vote for certain Democrats, might you not have a relatively positive view of Sanders since he is relatively willing to reach out to people who disagree with him on various issues due to his economically populist views?

Bumped.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Would you vote Dem in 2020 if the D ticket was John Breaux/Zell Miller?

Possibly, yes.  Although I'm not a big fan of Zell Miller.

[Fuzzy Bear]

- How would you rank Presidents since 1945

- How much of Bernie's Economic Platform do you support

Post-FDR, I suppose:

Eisenhower (a surprise, given my parents were BIG fans of Adlai Stevenson)
Truman
Carter
Ford
Reagan (correct on foreign policy, wrong on economics)
Clinton
Obama (he DID stabilize the economy and deserves more credit for that than he gets)
LBJ (he'd be higher were it not for Vietnam
JFK (somewhat overrated in terms of actual accomplishment)
Bush 41
Bush 43
Nixon (everything that people say Trump is)

I do not agree with Sanders on his overall economic policy, but I do agree on healthcare.  I have to think about much of the rest of this.  I personally believe that if there had been universal healthcare since the Truman years, we would never have had the social divides we have on issues such as welfare statism and SSM (which is driven, in part, by the healthcare issue).  Having universal healthcare would have ratcheted down much of the Culture Wars and made us, truly, a more tolerant nation (in the vein that tolerance is supposed to be applied).

How would you rank Trump on the list after he leaves office in 5 1/2 years?

He'll either be viewed as the Second Reagan or the Second Nixon.  I am not convinced he is going to be re-elected, but I never underestimate the Democrat's ability to blow elections they should win.

Trump is one of a kind, for better or worse.  He is the most polarizing public figure in my lifetime, bar none.  On the other hand, he has exposed the hypocrisy in others, on both the left and right; in that respect, he has performed a public service. 

I don't think historians will rank Trump very highly while he's alive.  In 50 years, after I'm dead, it's possible that, should things go well, Trump will be the beneficiary of revisionism as Harry Truman was.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What do you think about Huey Long?

I wrote a paper about him in college.  I thought more positively about him back then than I do now.

Huey Long, in his way, exposed the phonies.  The "Good Government" types.  His faction were certainly grafters, many of them, but the "Good Government" types like Sam Jones all turned out to be Dixiecrats.  That being said, Long was a man of great excesses, and men of that nature experience sudden downfalls.  Long was no exception, being assassinated at a young age.  Had he lived longer, his enemies would have eventually triumphed, because he'd have done something to give them the stick they needed to beat him over the head with.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What were your favorite bands growing up?

I am a 1950s Doo-Wop fan.  I loved, and still love, bands like The Five Discs, Dion and the Belmonts, The Earls, The Skyliners, and many such groups such as these.  And I loved Sha Na Na, who sought to keep this genre alive and bring it into the modern era.

Streetcorner Doo-Wop is the Folk Music of Urban America; it is as much Folk Music to City Folks as Bluegrass is to Appalachia.  It is a genre that I hope is preserved. 

I grew up in the 1960s after this music faded away, somewhat, but in the late 1960s, it began to dawn on folks that a lot of songs they loved weren't being played anymore, and there was a revival of these songs.  I went to "Saturday In The Park" in 1973; it had lots of these groups, and it was totally awesome.  I was not a concert-goer, but that was my favorite ever.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not dodging anyone, but some of these questions require more thought than others.  I'm only posting now because I had too much coffee today.

[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.

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?

I'm not a Movie Person.  I love sports, politics, and Christian TV (some of it, not all of it).  The thing I hate about many movies is the scenes where someone is about to be deeply embarrassed or misunderstood, as it causes me to relive some uncomfortable aspects of my teenage and college years.

[OSR stands with Israel]

- Nelson Rockefeller or Donald Trump

- Why did you support Obama in 2012

- Have you ever watched shows like 24, Monk , White Collar(all unrelated but these are my favorites) and if so what are your thoughts about them

- Are you an NBA fan or have you ever been one