Jerry Falwell Jr People Are Talking

[Kathianne]

I mean I was Law enforcement. I agree with you whole heartedly, BUT even criminals shouldn't be caught because people were investigating them and either came across a crime they committed or actually created the crime AKA perjury . Not in the USA, that is NOT how our justice system works. We investigate known crimes to see who may have committed them. We do NOT investigate people until we find a crime they may have committed. At least we didn't use to.

If members of the university are leaking to the press, there is the reason to look into investigating. Enough for warrants? Not yet, at least from what I've seen.

[STTAB]

If members of the university are leaking to the press, there is the reason to look into investigating. Enough for warrants? Not yet, at least from what I've seen.

That's not a criminal investigation and thus I don't care what standards they do or don't follow.

[Kathianne]

That's not a criminal investigation and thus I don't care what standards they do or don't follow.

Where did it say there was a criminal investigation? IRS?

[STTAB]

Where did it say there was a criminal investigation? IRS?

I would consider the IRS opening an investigation based on public reporting to be abusive. Yes, because IRS investigations can quickly become criminal investigations.

[Kathianne]

I would consider the IRS opening an investigation based on public reporting to be abusive. Yes, because IRS investigations can quickly become criminal investigations.

You're law enforcement, saying there should be no investigation without proof. But there should be no looking for proof? No response to look into such information given? Glad you're not an IRS investigator.

[STTAB]

You're law enforcement, saying there should be no investigation without proof. But there should be no looking for proof? No response to look into such information given? Glad you're not an IRS investigator.

You misunderstand

In this country, we do not investigate people or entities to uncover crimes. Instead , we investigate crimes to uncover people.

Let's say you stole a pair of pants from wherever, it doesn't matter where, just say a store.

Now let's assume the store never noticed the pants were missing, never reported the pants were missing, didn't know a crime had been committed.

But I as an asshole abusive cop who didn't like you thought "I'm gonna investigate Kath until I find something she did illegal" now let's assume that I was doing exactly that and I interview one of your friends and she was like "yeah Kath confided in me that she stole a pair of pants from ________" aha I thought, I got her now, and then I set about proving that you stole the pants..........

what kind of messed up jack off policing would that be.

Instead in this country, if the store doesn't miss the pants, too bad for them. But if they do, then they report it, and THEN as law enforcement I investigate the theft of the pants until I discover who stole them, namely you, in our scenario.

[Kathianne]

You misunderstand

In this country, we do not investigate people or entities to uncover crimes. Instead , we investigate crimes to uncover people.

Let's say you stole a pair of pants from wherever, it doesn't matter where, just say a store.

Now let's assume the store never noticed the pants were missing, never reported the pants were missing, didn't know a crime had been committed.

But I as an asshole abusive cop who didn't like you thought "I'm gonna investigate Kath until I find something she did illegal" now let's assume that I was doing exactly that and I interview one of your friends and she was like "yeah Kath confided in me that she stole a pair of pants from ________" aha I thought, I got her now, and then I set about proving that you stole the pants..........

what kind of messed up jack off policing would that be.

Instead in this country, if the store doesn't miss the pants, too bad for them. But if they do, then they report it, and THEN as law enforcement I investigate the theft of the pants until I discover who stole them, namely you, in our scenario.

I'm pretty certain that law enforcement does set up investigations, even stings, when they have multiple credible sources, capable of some knowledge of possible crimes-including possible white collar crime.

[Gunny]

I agree that the shysters make the rest look bad. But don’t underestimate the deep hatred that many have for those who believe the Bible. They see it as a personal affront because it makes them very uncomfortable. And no one unapologetically broadcasts their Biblical beliefs like an Evangelical, lol.

Naturally, I have given lots of staring at the desert field time to considering this. God-haters hate God because he is a higher authority than Man. Many put Man in the higher authority position and God is an impediment to doing whatever they want without consequence. Believers are daily reminders that they have tossed away that higher authority for Worldly pleasure and that one brain cell that is kicking and screaming and yelling no creates a resentment of that reminder. They don't want to be reminded of what they stand to lose if they're wrong.

Then there are those that were raised in abusive religions of which there are plenty. They learn to hate the religion itself instead of the abusers.

There's the argument that we're all hypocrites and that is true to the extent that we are not perfect no matter how hard we try and they capitalize on the mistakes, not the overall success.

Then there's the "Who knows?" theory. Haters are gonna hate

[Russ]

By the way, I just looked up the author of this hit-piece article. The guy's name is Brandon Ambrosino and he apparently is a staff writer for Vox.com, specializing in writing about religion. It has always been my opinion that people who study and write about 'the subject of religion' are the least religious people on the planet.

He has also written for Huffington Post, Gawker, and The Atlantic. In other words - clearly an avid liberal.

Also, within about 30 seconds of searching his name, it became clear that he is gay and has written about how difficult it was to be gay at Liberty University.

In summary, it is obvious the author of the article is not a fan of Liberty University and that in fact he resents Liberty for his difficult time as a student there. The author is probably not Christian, is certainly not conservative, and almost certainly resents Jerry Falwell, Jr. I'm not saying Falwell is innocent, but I am saying that I would not trust any negative story about Falwell that came from this author. Oh yeah, and I don't trust 'anonymous sources' either.

Just sayin'

[Abbey Marie]

One more thing:
If these anonymous folks feel that Falwell Jr is so awful, they should reveal their names. Man up and stand up for your convictions.

[Kathianne]

By the way, I just looked up the author of this hit-piece article. The guy's name is Brandon Ambrosino and he apparently is a staff writer for Vox.com, specializing in writing about religion. It has always been my opinion that people who study and write about 'the subject of religion' are the least religious people on the planet.

He has also written for Huffington Post, Gawker, and The Atlantic. In other words - clearly an avid liberal.

Also, within about 30 seconds of searching his name, it became clear that he is gay and has written about how difficult it was to be gay at Liberty University.

In summary, it is obvious the author of the article is not a fan of Liberty University and that in fact he resents Liberty for his difficult time as a student there. The author is probably not Christian, is certainly not conservative, and almost certainly resents Jerry Falwell, Jr. I'm not saying Falwell is innocent, but I am saying that I would not trust any negative story about Falwell that came from this author. Oh yeah, and I don't trust 'anonymous sources' either.

Just sayin'

One more thing:
If these anonymous folks feel that Falwell Jr is so awful, they should reveal their names. Man up and stand up for your convictions.

You both could be very correct in your thinking and still Falwell could be guilty as sin, his son too.

[Abbey Marie]

By the way, I just looked up the author of this hit-piece article. The guy's name is Brandon Ambrosino and he apparently is a staff writer for Vox.com, specializing in writing about religion. It has always been my opinion that people who study and write about 'the subject of religion' are the least religious people on the planet.

He has also written for Huffington Post, Gawker, and The Atlantic. In other words - clearly an avid liberal.

Also, within about 30 seconds of searching his name, it became clear that he is gay and has written about how difficult it was to be gay at Liberty University.

In summary, it is obvious the author of the article is not a fan of Liberty University and that in fact he resents Liberty for his difficult time as a student there. The author is probably not Christian, is certainly not conservative, and almost certainly resents Jerry Falwell, Jr. I'm not saying Falwell is innocent, but I am saying that I would not trust any negative story about Falwell that came from this author. Oh yeah, and I don't trust 'anonymous sources' either.

Just sayin'

Didn’t I say there’s always more to the story? I knew it! Nice work, Russ.

[Russ]

You both could be very correct in your thinking and still Falwell could be guilty as sin, his son too.

Granted, and I did acknowledge as much in my post.

But in the current climate, you can't take any single media outlet at their word. And anonymous sources have zero value. Possibly negative value.

[Kathianne]

Didn’t I say there’s always more to the story? I knew it! Nice work, Russ.

Again, you and Russ could be very correct and still have Falwell be found to have done just what has been accused.

I actually agree with you all that these types of issues would be best dealt with by an investigation, but how often can such be done, look at STTAB's opinion, the police, IRS, no one SHOULD look at anything, until proven they are guilty or something.

Powerful religious figures have built in cover-whether Evangelicals or pedophile priests or jackpot Jesse Jackson.

[NightTrain]

Nice job, Russ. You did what I was just about to do and research this journalist to get the backstory.

There's clearly a motivation that's anti-Trump and Falwell. The fact that he was a closet homo at a Christian University probably was pretty hellish for him, I get it. But now, that whole article sounds like his attempt to exact revenge on those running the show, and why not throw in a little Trump angle to gain further back-slapping from fellow moonbats? Win/Win for the Vox audience, I'm sure.

I don't know who this Falwell guy is, and if he's dirty, then let him hang. There's criminals in Christian businesses, too, unfortunately. Wasn't long ago I read a story about some southern Evangelical honcho that bought his wife a brand new Lamborghini for her birthday... you can't tell me that the poor slobs passing the plate had a Lambo in mind when putting in a few bucks.

In the last 10 years, I can't remember a single time when "anonymous" or "unnamed sources" have turned out to be legit. I expect at least half of them were fictional entities dreamed up in a rabid moonbat's fevered mind.

As for you, Pete, you climb back into your miserable little hole. You have zero moral authority on any level.