Speaker Mike Johnson

[Ingomike]

We’ve only seen this done once and it blew up in the Rs face.

If one believes they will always lose, they always will…

 

[jamil]

You’ll get blitzed with ads saying how at a time of global conflict your government is shutdown because of MAGA republicans while the media echoes their talking points. The President and Schumer stand there willing to move on status quo. You have to hold a 1 seat majority through the whole thing, with at least 8 of your members being self centered and willing to blow it up for media time.

How does this not go worse than when Ted Cruz led the Obamacare shutdown that blew up in the GOPs faces?

Well. It didn't. They got Obama to agree to a deal that actually transpired, which Republicans won. Small victory. It was only a 2% cut in the proposed spending. And it didn't last long.

But anyway, it would be just as it is now. Everyone in their own bubble is listening to their own media talking heads. No one on the D side will hear Republicans' point of view. They'll only hear Jake Tapper blaming it on Republicans. Republicans will get to see all the grifter Republicans "owning libs" on YouTube shorts for campaign cash.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the deficit is $2T and that has to end now. Do whatever it takes. No one's reputation will be soiled any more than it already is. Who cares if they call you bad names. What names have they not called Republicans anyway? What things have they not falsely accused Republicans of anyway? **** them. Shut the ****er down. Stop caring about what Democrats will say about you.

 

[jamil]

If one believes they will always lose, they always will…

If one cares that their detractors will say the same things they've been saying, all along, that makes that one a fool.

 

[Route 45]

 

[jamil]

Of course. That’s Romans 13:1.

Every [a]person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God.

I’m having trouble finding the verse that says the Republican Speaker of the House has to make ****ty deals with Democrats.

 

[HoosierLife]

We’re getting the leaders we deserve.

 

[jamil]

We’re getting the leaders we deserve.

I don’t deserve them. I didn’t vote for that ****.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Of course. That’s Romans 13:1.

Every [a]person is to be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except [b]from God, and those which exist are established by God.

I’m having trouble finding the verse that says the Republican Speaker of the House has to make ****ty deals with Democrats.

It’s probably in the do not judge or give to Rome clauses. Christians are all the time justifying all sorts of bad things on those.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don’t deserve them. I didn’t vote for that ****.

I think that’s covered by the rain falls on the just and unjust alike clause.

 

[HoosierLife]

I don’t deserve them. I didn’t vote for that ****.

Our actions, our rejection of God and His Word nationally has lead to the moral corruption in our homes and society.

That trickles down to our selection pool of elected leaders.

We’re getting the leaders we deserve.

On a positive note, Johnson looks to be holding the line here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/17/speaker-mike-johnson-doubles-down-no-deal-on-border/

 

[jamil]

Our actions, our rejection of God and His Word nationally has lead to the moral corruption in our homes and society.

That trickles down to our selection pool of elected leaders.

We’re getting the leaders we deserve.

On a positive note, Johnson looks to be holding the line here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/01/17/speaker-mike-johnson-doubles-down-no-deal-on-border/

I’m an individual. Not a collective. If the blame for the miserable selection of available leaders is “us”, then so is slavery. So is Nazism. So is communism. I think that logically, the blame for evil falls squarely on those who do evil.

I mean, it’s fine if you believe what’s happening is because of the rejection of God. In a way I think you’re right. Religion does play a roll in societal behavior. Christianity, I think, has had an overall positive effect on society. A belief in God has a stabilizing effect on societies, albeit not without pitfalls. Anyway, it doesn’t look to me like humans have a viable replacement
For religion as a stabilizing force. So well and good to believe in a religion that produced Hebrews chapter 11.

But. Did YOU reject God? No? Then how do you fit into the category of people who have? You think your membership in a collective, the residents within the boarders of the USA, makes you guilty of every godless sin the USA has committed? You might as well start paying reparations for slavery then.

I totally reject the idea of collective guilt for what some within a group I have no choice but to belong to, do. There’s no such thing as a society. There are individuals, and there are families.

 

[HoosierLife]

I’m an individual. Not a collective. If the blame for the miserable selection of available leaders is “us”, then so is slavery. So is Nazism. So is communism. I think that logically, the blame for evil falls squarely on those who do evil.

I mean, it’s fine if you believe what’s happening is because of the rejection of God. In a way I think you’re right. Religion does play a roll in societal behavior. Christianity, I think, has had an overall positive effect on society. A belief in God has a stabilizing effect on societies, albeit not without pitfalls. Anyway, it doesn’t look to me like humans have a viable replacement
For religion as a stabilizing force. So well and good to believe in a religion that produced Hebrews chapter 11.

But. Did YOU reject God? No? Then how do you fit into the category of people who have? You think your membership in a collective, the residents within the boarders of the USA, makes you guilty of every godless sin the USA has committed? You might as well start paying reparations for slavery then.

I totally reject the idea of collective guilt for what some within a group I have no choice but to belong to, do. There’s no such thing as a society. There are individuals, and there are families.

Individuals will be judged when they meet their Maker. Nations get judged today. They get judged collectively.

You can be upset about it and call it Communism if you want, but it is what it is.

Just because the righteous exist in a nation, does not mean they don't share in the judgment of the unrighteousness that nation is involved in.

There's too many examples in the Bible to name, Elijah the 3 years of no rain and the other 7000 righteous that hadn't bowed their knees to Baal, Lot and his family in Sodom, Daniel/Jeremiah/Ezekiel in Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar exacted God's judgment for the nation's idolatry.

We are benefiting from God's blessing of the general direction of our earliest forefathers.

Now we are dealing with the fallout that comes from falling away.

Jeremiah18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

 

[jamil]

Individuals will be judged when they meet their Maker. Nations get judged today. They get judged collectively.

You can be upset about it and call it Communism if you want, but it is what it is.

Just because the righteous exist in a nation, does not mean they don't share in the judgment of the unrighteousness that nation is involved in.

There's too many examples in the Bible to name, Elijah the 3 years of no rain and the other 7000 righteous that hadn't bowed their knees to Baal, Lot and his family in Sodom, Daniel/Jeremiah/Ezekiel in Jerusalem when Nebuchadnezzar exacted God's judgment for the nation's idolatry.

We are benefiting from God's blessing of the general direction of our earliest forefathers.

Now we are dealing with the fallout that comes from falling away.

Jeremiah18:7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

Well the bible verses are unnecessary, but not unwelcome. Defefinitely confirms that your point of view comes from that alone. And I’m not angry. I didn’t think I came off as angry. Or disparaging you for deriving your stance and beliefs from the Bible. My view is not. So we probably don’t have much common ground on the individualist perspective. We can politely disagree.

 

[BugI02]

I totally reject the idea of collective guilt for what some within a group I have no choice but to belong to, do. There’s no such thing as a society. There are individuals, and there are families.

For someone who claims to reject collective guilt, I seem to recall you are all too willing to hold everyone who fought for the confederacy as guilty of fighting for slavery, denying that any other issue such as state's rights could have motivated many of those who did the actual fighting and had no dog in the slavery fight.

Estimates I've read range from 1% to 20% of southerners owned slaves, and the numbers of total confederate soldiers are a range from 750,000 to 1.228 million, which would be 8.6% to 14.1% of the confederacy's estimated population of 8.7 million. So you are quite willing to blame all for the sins of 1 in 8 or 1 in 7

 

[jamil]

For someone who claims to reject collective guilt, I seem to recall you are all too willing to hold everyone who fought for the confederacy as guilty of fighting for slavery, denying that any other issue such as state's rights could have motivated many of those who did the actual fighting and had no dog in the slavery fight.

Not true. I’ve said that the aristocrat slave owners conned the rest into thinking it’s about states’ rights. I’m sure the peasants and fellow countrymen believed it was about states’ rights. The aristocrats own words betrayed them. They argued in congress for Southern states’ rights while arguing against Northern states rights. They wrote papers and books on the subject. The North was certainly not innocent. They all played the political games that divided people play. But for the rich confederates to claim it was all about states’ rights is a farce.

Estimates I've read range from 1% to 20% of southerners owned slaves, and the numbers of total confederate soldiers are a range from 750,000 to 1.228 million, which would be 8.6% to 14.1% of the confederacy's estimated population of 8.7 million. So you are quite willing to blame all for the sins of 1 in 8 or 1 in 7

Your stats are unnecessary because they make an argument against a position I do not hold.

I have never blamed all for the sins of the few. I do not blame the rank and file, the poor, and the middle class, for their participation. They fought mostly for regional pride. I lay blame on only on those who shed their brothers’ blood to maintain slavery. Those who thought they were fighting for some noble cause, they were just duped.

I’ve even defended Robert E Lee. A slave owner himself at one point. For him his participation was in defense of his state. He said if Virginia sided with the north, he’d have fought on the other side.

You seem so eager to find hypocrisy that you’ll attribute beliefs to me that I don’t actually have.

 

[BugI02]

If that is true then I stand corrected. My memory, which is not perfect, was that you stood with the Houghmade wing of INGO, insisting that the war was only about slavery. I thought I even took you to task once for being a fan of nuance except in cases when you didn't find it useful such as the question of the reasons for the civil war

I apologize for the misunderstanding

 

[jamil]

If that is true then I stand corrected. My memory, which is not perfect, was that you stood with the Houghmade wing of INGO, insisting that the war was only about slavery. I thought I even took you to task once for being a fan of nuance except in cases when you didn't find it useful such as the question of the reasons for the civil war

I apologize for the misunderstanding

I did agree with Hough that the war was indeed about slavery. I certainly did not say that everyone in the South was fighting to preserve slavery.

I lived in the south for a good part of my life. I lived in NC, Sc, and Missippi. Working class people have a lot of pride in their region. I mean we all kinda do. If that gets turned into an us/them conflict, then what it's about will be about that to many of them.

 

[DadSmith]

Johnson backed into corner as conservatives put speaker on notice

The speaker has sought to keep all members of his party happy by avoiding tough decisions that could spark their ire — pushing Johnson into a corner as he must now lead his party into negotiations with Democrats on a number of issues.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

This was obvious at the time. Grifters gotta grift.