New House speaker has reputation for being a man of faith, family and conservative convictions

[Bradskii]

After all, if one truly believes that human beings are simply an accident of nature, each person is completely free to choose what he defines as moral, and could decide it is not immoral to kill one. After all, if one believes there is no creator, one is ones own god.

I guess that it's lucky for everyone you know that you're a Christian.

 

[o_mlly]

That's pretty much who voted, absent a few dead people who voted for Trump. But not enough of them to swing the election.

It's time to put the 2020 election in the rearview mirror and conclude that the Dems stole that election fair and square (compliments to the late senator S. Hayakawa).

Back to the thread, I like Mike Johnson; he speaks coherently, you know, in sentences. Why others do not is a mystery to me. Are they just irrational heterophobes or religiophobes?

 

[JustOneWay]

Back to the thread, I like Mike Johnson; he speaks coherently, you know, in sentences. Why others do not is a mystery to me. Are they just irrational heterophobes or religiophobes?

Great. He can speak sentences. The issue isn't how he speaks sentences, but what the sentences mean.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's time to put the 2020 election in the rearview mirror and conclude that the Dems stole that election fair and square (compliments to the late senator S. Hayakawa).

Sorry, Trump's own AG investigated and found no significant cheating. A number of Trump supporters were arrested for voting dead people, but not nearly enough to swing the election. Dozens of courts dismissed the frivolous lawsuits asserting that the election was stolen. Ultimately, the deniers, egged on by Trump, tried to overthrow the government to cancel a fair a free election. Trump himself privately admitted that he lost. Accept the reality and move on.

 

[The Barbarian]

'You are going to vote for a man who sexually assaulted a woman?'
'Well hey, he didn't actually rape her.'

That's the moral standard of today's republican party.

 

[o_mlly]

Great. He can speak sentences. The issue isn't how he speaks sentences, but what the sentences mean.

It's possible to gather meaning from one who speaks in sentences. More difficult to gather meaning from non-sentences such as "Don't" or just merely cackling.

 

[o_mlly]

Sorry, Trump's own AG investigated and found no significant cheating. A number of Trump supporters were arrested for voting dead people, but not nearly enough to swing the election. Dozens of courts dismissed the frivolous lawsuits asserting that the election was stolen. Ultimately, the deniers, egged on by Trump, tried to overthrow the government to cancel a fair a free election. Trump himself privately admitted that he lost. Accept the reality and move on.

I have moved on. Historians will sort out the reality of the 2020 election. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

[JustOneWay]

It's possible to gather meaning from one who speaks in sentences. More difficult to gather meaning from non-sentences such as "Don't" or just merely cackling.

Fair. From the meanings in his sentences I believe he may as well be cackling.

Yes, don't is not a sentence. It is a contraction of two words, and the meaning of 'do not' carries a clear meaning.

 

[JustOneWay]

I have moved on. Historians will sort out the reality of the 2020 election. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

The historians have already sorted it out, and the conclusion is Trump lost then tried to steal the election back from the true winner.

How can we move on when the loser of the previous election cannot move on and is trying to get back in power? Perhaps you should worry more about anything else other than what others are doing.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, don't is not a sentence. It is a contraction of two words, and the meaning of 'do not' carries a clear meaning.

Clear? Grammar, my dear Watson!

In the absence of an explicit subject the only implied subject possible is "You" and that would be the questioner, Mr. Pelley. Even if we allow as a courtesy to the aged speaker some deference on the matter of subject there's still the absence of an object clause attached to his utterance. Even if we allow that he was trying to be politically evasive then I would refer you to the countless other unintelligible Biden Blunders.

 

[o_mlly]

The historians have already sorted it out ...

Which historians would those be? Got any citations?

 

[JustOneWay]

Clear? Grammar, my dear Watson!

In the absence of an explicit subject the only implied subject possible is "You" and that would be the questioner, Mr. Pelley. Even if we allow as a courtesy to the aged speaker some deference on the matter of subject there's still the absence of an object clause attached to his utterance. Even if we allow that he was trying to be politically evasive then I would refer you to the countless other unintelligible Biden Blunders.

Here we go again. The meaningless argument about who talks better than to others. It is a waste of time because actions speak louder than words.

 

[JustOneWay]

Which historians would those be? Got any citations?

Sorry, but a discussion like that veers from the topic of a man and conservative convictions....

Now if you wanted to discuss the many conservative convictions in Georgia. that may be on topic! maybe? LOL

 

[The Barbarian]

I have moved on. Historians will sort out the reality of the 2020 election.

Courts have already done that. And they get to decide. Just accept the reality and move on.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Ok

How is that humanly possible? The man is meant to be representing the US.

It gives a window into the amount of respect I hold for politicians. I'm 70, and I pay attention. I'm tired of being lied to. It's why I became an independent about21 years ago. Talk is cheap - especially in politics.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I guess that it's lucky for everyone you know that you're a Christian.

The good news is that there are truly few actual atheists*, and even fewer with the courage to carry out what their beliefs allow. Though it is obvious in our world that it does happen. To get a feel for what such a "small time" player might be like, I highly recommend the book, "From the Corner of His Eye", by Dean Koontz.

*most self described atheists, when further questioned, turn out to actually be agnostics.

 

[o_mlly]

It seems the heterophobes an religiophobes pursue the usual liberal tactic: first, try to murder the man's reputation in the womb, so to speak, eg., "orange hair" bad, conservative convictions bad.

 

[Bradskii]

Talk is cheap - especially in politics.

Talk gives an indication of of the worth of the person who is talking. It also gives an indication of the morality of those who decide on that worth. Whether they think it's inconsequential or not. We are judged on what we decide.

 

[JustOneWay]

It seems the heterophobes an religiophobes pursue the usual liberal tactic: first, try to murder the man's reputation in the womb, so to speak, eg., "orange hair" bad, conservative convictions bad.

LOL Nobody really knew his reputation until AFTER he became second in line to the Presidency! The rest of the post is meaningless.

 

[Bradskii]

*most self described atheists, when further questioned, turn out to actually be agnostics.

You should discuss this with those who describe themselves as one or the other. I look forward to being involved in that thread.