Christianity Today Op Ed

[oxmixmudd]

No, it doesn't. Even Chuck Schumer has admitted as much with his calls for more testimony and discovery in the interest of uncovering all the facts. If the evidence is "overwhelming", like Democrats and their ilk keep insisting, then why the need for more evidence?

Because people like you will not admit the obvious until someone can rub their nose in it. Maybe not even then.

[oxmixmudd]

I gave you my response to this, Ox, and, if I'm not mistaken, you chose not to respond.

It had to do with the eternal vs the temporal.

My apologies if you responded and I missed it - we tend to have a lot of drive-by foolishness posts scattered throughout.

?

[Cow Poke]

?

You must have missed it.

[oxmixmudd]

You must have missed it.

There is no post by you that is a direct response to that post which addresses eternal vs temporal

[Tassman]

And yet you can see it for yourself virtually each and every day.

What can be seen "virtually each and every day" is a president with a severely disordered personality about whom nothing good can be said categorically. Or as the magazine founded by Billy Graham, i.e. Christianity Today, put it: Trump is a 'near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2710872001/

[Cow Poke]

What can be seen "virtually each and every day" is a president with a severely disordered personality about whom nothing good can be said categorically. Or as the magazine founded by Billy Graham, i.e. Christianity Today, put it: Trump is a 'near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/2710872001/

You're playing that game again, Tass, where you're adding phrases to make something look more important that it is.

Even though CT was "founded by Billy Graham", his own son said his Dad was a Trump supporter, and that the family hasn't had anything to do with CT in quite a while.

That it was "founded by Billy Graham" is irrelevant.

[Cow Poke]

There is no post by you that is a direct response to that post which addresses eternal vs temporal

You say that with such absolute certainty -- so next, you're prepared to prove this negative?

[Teallaura]

You totally ignored the definition of "abortion on demand" that fits her to a tee - and when she is against ANY restriction on abortion, that justifies the "until birth".

Jim, your liberal hero babykillers used to say abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". They have LONG AGO abandoned the "rare".

And the safe.

[JimL]

CT just had a bad editorial. I'm not sure why that is interpreted as causing a split.

No, it was an op-ed that revealed a schism within the christian community that has been ongoing for some time. Some, specifically christian clergy, believe that they should look the other way and support an immoral reprobate to lead the nation in order that he give them conservative judges, a quid pro quo with the devil so to speak, and some believe that perspective sends the wrong message to the flock as well as to those outside looking in. It's not just one bad editorial, many preachers have been speaking out about this for some time now, they just don't get the noteriety that a CT op-ed gets.

[oxmixmudd]

You say that with such absolute certainty -- so next, you're prepared to prove this negative?

Sure, the post in question is post 220, you responded in post 222 with no mention of the words eternal or temporal, and then your claim you had responded with those words is post 224. That's it.

[mikewhitney]

No, it was an op-ed that revealed a schism within the christian community that has been ongoing for some time. Some, specifically christian clergy, believe that they should look the other way and support an immoral reprobate to lead the nation in order that he give them conservative judges, a quid pro quo with the devil so to speak, and some believe that perspective sends the wrong message to the flock as well as to those outside looking in. It's not just one bad editorial, many preachers have been speaking out about this for some time now, they just don't get the noteriety that a CT op-ed gets.

Well. It has been awhile since Clinton was President. So we are past any schism like that. The CT editorial seemed confused. He had not spoken of real evidence so his point remained pure opinion. If he separates on that basis, that is a bit typical.
Jim, until someone can provide some evidence of a crime or even an impeachable offense, then the conversation here cannot proceed very well. All we had from the Dems was to find out what public opinion was and then to try to bring in witnesses who have no first hand testimony ... but only opinions. Even then, they contradicted themselves. If this is what you rely on, don't be part of a jury where there is an overly aggressive prosecutor. The Dems asked for a knife from Trump to stab him -- he is not obligated to become a victim of partisan politics.

This gets tiring when there is no agreement on basic facts needed to impeach someone.

[JimL]

Well. It has been awhile since Clinton was President. So we are past any schism like that. The CT editorial seemed confused. He had not spoken of real evidence so his point remained pure opinion. If he separates on that basis, that is a bit typical.
Jim, until someone can provide some evidence of a crime or even an impeachable offense, then the conversation here cannot proceed very well. All we had from the Dems was to find out what public opinion was and then to try to bring in witnesses who have no first hand testimony ... but only opinions. Even then, they contradicted themselves. If this is what you rely on, don't be part of a jury where there is an overly aggressive prosecutor. The Dems asked for a knife from Trump to stab him -- he is not obligated to become a victim of partisan politics.

This gets tiring when there is no agreement on basic facts needed to impeach someone.

The evidence is overwhelming, but overwhelming is not enough to prevent you, i.e those of you that just refuse to accept it, from making excuses in your own mind. That's why the Dems want the witnesses and documents that Trump denied to the congressional inquiry, not because the evidence is not already sufficient, but so that you too would have no more excuses, no more choice other than to admit to yourself that Trump is guilty.
That I think too is why you guys on the other side don't want to hear from those witnesses, don't want to see those documents, because you fear that they will reveal what you don't want to accept. There is no other logical reason that you would be arguing against all the available evidence be allowed.

At any rate, each one of those documents and each one of those witnesses being subpoened for testimony will be voted on at the trial. That's going to be a difficult vote for republicans because, maybe not you, or Tea, or CP et al, but many of their constituents actually want to know the facts, the truth, and don't want a mock trial, or cover-up.

[Tassman]

You're playing that game again, Tass, where you're adding phrases to make something look more important that it is.

Even though CT was "founded by Billy Graham", his own son said his Dad was a Trump supporter,

But his own grandson Boz Tchividjian said with reference to the CT article: "Well said on so many levels. I believe my grandfather would have had a similar perspective."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/88561...y-graham-trump

That it was "founded by Billy Graham" is irrelevant.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/75681...-what-happened

[mikewhitney]

The evidence is overwhelming, but overwhelming is not enough to prevent you, i.e those of you that just refuse to accept it, from making excuses in your own mind. That's why the Dems want the witnesses and documents that Trump denied to the congressional inquiry, not because the evidence is not already sufficient, but so that you too would have no more excuses, no more choice other than to admit to yourself that Trump is guilty.
That I think too is why you guys on the other side don't want to hear from those witnesses, don't want to see those documents, because you fear that they will reveal what you don't want to accept. There is no other logical reason that you would be arguing against all the available evidence be allowed.

At any rate, each one of those documents and each one of those witnesses being subpoened for testimony will be voted on at the trial. That's going to be a difficult vote for republicans because, maybe not you, or Tea, or CP et al, but many of their constituents actually want to know the facts, the truth, and don't want a mock trial, or cover-up.

You are so excited that a crime may have been committed that you will glean on to hearsay to hang Trump. If the Dems couldn't make a case without begging the Senate to have more witnesses, then the Dems obviously couldn't make a case. The logic is pretty simple here. The Dems have no more excuses for promoting this any further.

so what testimony and evidence can you point to that was convincing?

What part of the impeachment clause was violated? Is the unfulfilled whims of the House sufficient to impeach a President?

[rogue06]

Meanwhile his son, Franklin Graham, has pointed out that Billy was a supporter of Trump's and voted for him in 2016.