A partisan tool, as predicted.

Nancy was total bipartisan politician right?

quote:

The more I see of Mike Johnson…the better I like him!

Of course you do!!!!

Technically, if the court case in Colorado goes against Trump, establishes that the riot on 1/6 was insurrection and the 14th sec 3 is valid, then Mike Johnson is disqualified from holding office, per the constitution, which he claims to cherish.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...70126a6d2f2f71&ei=37

And, BTW, Fox News is pure poison of the mind, the country, the constitution. But, it's free speech.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...70126a6d2f2f71&ei=79

Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

. . . kooks of a feather flock together.

Fascist Fodder.

Democrats will always support more government agents, regardless of the agency, and will see any proposal to reduce same as bordering on treason! Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Democrats will always support more government agents, regardless of the agency, and will see any proposal to reduce same as bordering on treason! Bill.

And the current crop of Republicans will do all they can to make sure Government does not function as it should, then they will point out that it is broken.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
A partisan tool, as predicted.

Nancy Pelosi was the epitome of a “partisan tool.”

Nancy on the AFA: “You have to pass it to see what is in it.” A bill written behind closed doors by affiliates of the 0bama administration with zero debate on the content.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . kooks of a feather flock together.

A kook that was able to garner unanimous party consent…more so than McCarthy (who you didn’t see me championing his ouster). He easily signed on all the moderates. That speaks highly of him. And, while I never saw him on the radar…I am pleasantly pleased. He looks to be a salt-of-the-earth type human being.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
A partisan tool, as predicted.

Nancy Pelosi was the epitome of a “partisan tool.”

Nancy on the AFA: “You have to pass it to see what is in it.” A bill written behind closed doors by affiliates of the 0bama administration with zero debate on the content.

A classic case of whataboutism. You never fail to disappoint.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by skb:
A partisan tool, as predicted.

Nancy Pelosi was the epitome of a “partisan tool.”

Nancy on the AFA: “You have to pass it to see what is in it.” A bill written behind closed doors by affiliates of the 0bama administration with zero debate on the content.

A classic case of whataboutism. You never fail to disappoint.

Anyone active in politics of the 21st that has learned anything about the process we employ…is that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. If you haven’t learned that lesson…you are pretty much relegated to the sideline.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . kooks of a feather flock together.

A kook that was able to garner unanimous party consent…more so than McCarthy (who you didn’t see me championing his ouster). He easily signed on all the moderates. That speaks highly of him. And, while I never saw him on the radar…I am pleasantly pleased. He looks to be a salt-of-the-earth type human being.

Salt-of-the-earth = Someone that looks like, thinks like and supports the positions I advocate

Johnson got 4 more votes than McCarthy after who the kooks wanted to cast got tossed.

That is not unanimous endorsement of your foolishness. It also will cost you the House.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

What kind of Country will we have if some rich folks and corporations have to pay the taxes they've been evading for years?

Auditing those with platoons of lawyers is expensive so we need to keep IRS funding low so they can only audit people who don't make millions.

The mere fact that auditing the rich returns $12 for every $1 spent is immaterial...

Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

By House rules which I posted previously, the Speaker is suppose to be impartial and protect the minority.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Johnson got 4 more votes than McCarthy after who the kooks wanted to cast got tossed.

That is not unanimous endorsement of your foolishness. It also will cost you the House.

The only (R) who didn’t vote for him was absent and voiced support. That is unanimous (R) support.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

By House rules which I posted previously, the Speaker is suppose to be impartial and protect the minority.

Like Nancy Pelosi?

One of the longer standing speakers I know of.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

By House rules which I posted previously, the Speaker is suppose to be impartial and protect the minority.

Like Nancy Pelosi?

The longest standing speaker I know of.

What about

What about

What about


That is not a debating technique Lane. Your welcome.

Steve

So, your side gets to ignore house rules and that gets a pass…

But when the GOP does it, it’s a violation?

Johnson has a duty to protect minority rights per house rules, but the election process is purely partisan.

Otherwise the speaker would be from the minority party in order to protect minority interests…

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

By House rules which I posted previously, the Speaker is suppose to be impartial and protect the minority.

Like Nancy Pelosi?

One of the longer standing speakers I know of.

What about

What about

What about


That is not a debating technique Lane. Your welcome.

Steve

We are not really debating. I agree that Johnson is partisan. I am just suggesting that has been the norm for a score.

Notice that I didn’t insult him.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So, your side gets to ignore house rules and that gets a pass…

But when the GOP does it, it’s a violation?

Johnson has a duty to protect minority rights per house rules, but the election process is purely partisan.

Otherwise the speaker would be from the minority party in order to protect minority interests…

It is not purely partisan. Selection of the candidate is. The election is bi-party. If one party decides to vote no down line, that is its prerogative. The distinction is they get to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by skb:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Isn’t any sort of leadership position in congress by definition partisan?

I’m hoping Johnson rises to the occasion. Some have, some haven’t.

Even blind partisans do find the acorn occasionally.

By House rules which I posted previously, the Speaker is suppose to be impartial and protect the minority.

Like Nancy Pelosi?

The longest standing speaker I know of.

What about

What about

What about


That is not a debating technique Lane. Your welcome.

Steve

All he is saying Doc, is that it's okay when liberals do it... Pretty pathetic actually......

.

Good for thee, but not for me.

The last two posters on this thread failed to pick up on some of the subtleties in my post. At least Lane did not miss it. Notice the wink at the end? I delight in busting Lanes' balls, I think he knows that. There was more than a little bit of jest in my post.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

The USA has been collecting Tax Revenue just fine all of my business life. Reallocating unspent funds they have never had access to is not going to change anything with the IRS.

The post in general reveals the ignorance of the poster in regard to management of large multifaceted entities.

All CEOs move money around if they have cash to the squeakiest wheel they have in order to not borrow money and accrue debt. Its a normal business practice. Democrats of course prefer to just borrow more and bankrupt the country.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

The USA has been collecting Tax Revenue just fine all of my business life. Reallocating unspent funds they have never had access to is not going to change anything with the IRS.

The post in general reveals the ignorance of the poster in regard to management of large multifaceted entities.

All CEOs move money around if they have cash to the squeakiest wheel they have in order to not borrow money and accrue debt. Its a normal business practice. Democrats of course prefer to just borrow more and bankrupt the country.

Republican psycho-babble gathered during today's FOX News viewing.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

The USA has been collecting Tax Revenue just fine all of my business life. Reallocating unspent funds they have never had access to is not going to change anything with the IRS.

The post in general reveals the ignorance of the poster in regard to management of large multifaceted entities.

All CEOs move money around if they have cash to the squeakiest wheel they have in order to not borrow money and accrue debt. Its a normal business practice. Democrats of course prefer to just borrow more and bankrupt the country.

Republican psycho-babble gathered during today's FOX News viewing.

No sir…just reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Yeah, what a terrific idea. Let's compromise the government's ability to collect tax revenue so we can send more tax revenue to Israel.

Stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. But, popular with the usual moron suspects for sure.

The USA has been collecting Tax Revenue just fine all of my business life. Reallocating unspent funds they have never had access to is not going to change anything with the IRS.

The post in general reveals the ignorance of the poster in regard to management of large multifaceted entities.

All CEOs move money around if they have cash to the squeakiest wheel they have in order to not borrow money and accrue debt. Its a normal business practice. Democrats of course prefer to just borrow more and bankrupt the country.

Republican psycho-babble gathered during today's FOX News viewing.

except it isn't - Mike, are you aware that there is a separate and different discipline of accounting for government financial professionals than the other, rest of, the real world?

A data point to prove teh point - private industry's CEO/CFO have little trouble moving funds from Marketing to security, or vice versa, which generally doesn't require explicit board approval, to carry on the mission.

When trump wanted to move UNUSED monies to building the wall you may recall the hew and cry over abrogation of the house's (frequently mislabeled as "congress", which is formally defined in the Constitution) -- you might recall it was somehwat more hearty than "hey, i was going to spend that" -- while I haven't re-researched it, i do recall your own posts against shuffling said funds.

Danger! MAGA Mike's got his Bible out!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f613e6341541cc&ei=38

But if Christian nationalism was a danger a year ago, it’s even more of a danger today – now that a Christian Nationalist, Louisiana’s “ MAGA Mike” Johnson, holds the powerful position of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
And there’s no doubt where Johnson stands. He made that clear on the first day of his speakership. Making an obligatory appearance with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Johnson told the world: “Someone asked me today in the media, they said…‘ People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said,‘ Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it – that’s my worldview.’”

Whoa! Stop! Read that again. Let that sink in. It’s shocking that the man entrusted with the powerful position of Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in line for the presidency of the United States, says he’s guided by the Bible, not by the Constitution. That statement itself is so un-American it should scare everyone, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, or non-believer.

ME, are you mad that he has a religion, or that he doesn't follow your religion-surrogate?\

I don't see where he excluded the constitution - but that's YOUR strawman --

You know, the world is a much better place if you either assume good intent, or at least try to assume the same good grace as you put on "your" side.

quote:

You know, the world is a much better place if you either assume good intent, or at least try to assume the same good grace as you put on "your" side.

"My side" - like grace and good intent has a side?

It either is or isn't.

When MAGA Mike stood for denying the will of the people, and helping Trump retain power, unconstitutionally, the assumptions of good intent/will/grace went up in a puff of vapor. (much like his beliefs, BTW) Everything he does after that can be assumed to be ulterior motivated, deviant from the constitution, or perhaps only coincidentally relevant.

Read his lips, He means what he says.

He wrote a weak amicus brief .. while in 2016 EVERY lefty MSM cried that trump stole the election .. i think that neither side has the high ground here

"like grace and good intent has a side"

thanks for the chuckle

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
He wrote a weak amicus brief .. while in 2016 EVERY lefty MSM cried that trump stole the election .. i think that neither side has the high ground here

"like grace and good intent has a side"

thanks for the chuckle

There ya go - there is no grace or good intent in that post. (even assuming it's true which is questionable)

It's a gross false equivalence, within which good intent - the lack of - is self evident.

Your good-intent compass is broken.

again, thanks for the chuckle - i met you half way, in the neither side has the high ground, and gave you examples where HUNDREDS of media said trump stole the election, and that johnson wrote a weak amicus .. and you have some kind of hurt over that?

---okay this part isn't with good grace--
First day on the internet?

What the media said had no consequences regarding the transition, per the constitution. It was merely free speach and freedom of the press, which is constitutional.

"Weak Amicus" - the fact that he wrote it at all, weak or not, is the point. I think he did more than that.

Trump's whole endeavor was weak. Yet he did it. It was a trial run. They will have good intent next time.

quote:

neither side has the high ground

Well, one side has indictments with 91 felony counts. How does that measure in high ground?

You THINK he did more than that? But the evidence is he wrote a weak amicus - dude, are you now an anti-1a guy? he literally broke no laws, as presenting it as a brief is literally signing his name to a "guilty" plea. He didn't "storm the building" he didn't disrupt a proceeding in congress, merely placed his opinion (just like you are doing by saying you THINK he did more than that) in a totally non-binding, not-even-required-to-be-read document stating he felt that certain procedures had been broken -- read it, the first couple pages are amusing, from a contorted view point.

but "feels" aren't broken laws.. well, in the UK they could be, but that's different.