Keeping $500 hammers from costing $800 for circa 40 years. Barb's BFF. Follow TX, AL, MS politics. Home to the floofiest floofs in the history of floofdom.

DFW
Mark Reeder retweeted
Post #AEWDynamite, Jon Moxley shared a great message we can all learn from Pac. @Studio1Sports
19
1,221
6,169
208,799
Mark Reeder retweeted
Replying to @Pepe_Chavez
Do you have the rest of the comic? I only found this part.
1
2
25
3,593
Under the law that CONGRESS passed, it can (within 60 days of receipt) vote to disapprove the rescissions, which would mean the Administration would have to spend the $. Even with only 5 days left, they can assemble and vote to disapprove. Why don't they do their job?
Without warning or consultation, Congress just received an $810 million package of pocket rescissions from the Administration.  This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.    This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law.     Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers.  OMB is an agency of the executive branch.  It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.   The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act. Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.   I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.
Community note
Senator Collins voted to confirm OMB Director Vought, despite Vought’s known support for the President’s efforts to impound Congressionally-approved funds. thehill.com/homenews/senat… thehill.com/homenews/senat…
1
6
148
I was wrong on this; Congress has only 45 days to vote to disapprove.
13
It is my belief that, if AI ever got to the point where humanity would truly be threatened, that God would return and wind things up.
1
12
173
Mark Reeder retweeted
Replying to @Whosoeverwills
If God says that he didn't have anything to do with the sacrifice of those children, but actually he secretly decreed it... How is that not a house divided against itself?
1
1
3
108
Mark Reeder retweeted
I have been thinking about something lately in this whole debate over whether Christ’s atonement was limited or unlimited. And a question keeps coming back to me: what if, instead of beginning with any theological system, we simply went back to the shadow of the Old Testament sacrificial system? Before Christ came, God had already given Israel an elaborate sacrificial system that pointed forward to Him. So perhaps one of the clearest ways to understand the scope of Christ’s atonement is to ask a very simple question about the pattern God Himself established: For whom was atonement provided under the old covenant? Was the sacrifice provided only for certain preselected individuals within Israel? Was it for “all kinds” of Israelites but not every Israelite? Or did God provide atonement for the whole covenant community, even though not everyone who lived under that provision ultimately walked with God in faith? Because if the sacrifices were the shadow and Christ is the substance, then the shadow may tell us something profoundly important about the scope of the reality to which it was pointing. So I went back to Leviticus. And what I found, especially in the Day of Atonement, deserves serious consideration before any of us confidently says that Christ could not have died for someone who ultimately perishes. God commanded Aaron to make atonement: “for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.” Leviticus 16:17 Then concerning the scapegoat: “Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins.” Leviticus 16:21 Please, pay close attention to the language. All the assembly. All their iniquities. All their transgressions. All their sins. God did not tell Aaron to discover which Israelites were secretly elect before making atonement. The provision belonged to the covenant community. And yet nobody should conclude that every Israelite was therefore eternally saved. Scripture itself destroys that idea. Many who shared Israel's covenant privileges remained unbelieving and perished. Paul later reminds us that although Israel passed through the sea and shared extraordinary covenant blessings, “with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (1 Cor. 10:5). So right there in the shadow we already have a category that Limited Atonement arguments sometimes struggle to allow: Atoning provision can extend more broadly than its saving enjoyment. That does not make the sacrifice a failure. And then Christ comes, and then the shadow gives way to something infinitely greater. John sees Jesus and cries: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29. That should stop us for a moment. Under the old covenant, the sacrifice was not restricted to an invisible selection of Israelites. And now that the true Lamb has come, are we really supposed to believe that the reality is narrower in personal provision than the shadow? The New Testament moves in precisely the opposite direction. Israel gives way to the world. One nation gives way to all nations. The old covenant priesthood gives way to the one Mediator between God and humanity. The blood of animals gives way to the blood of the Son of God. And suddenly the language becomes enormous: “God so loved the world...” John 3:16 “[He] gave himself as a ransom for all.” 1 Timothy 2:6 “That by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” Hebrews 2:9 And then John almost seems to anticipate our attempt to shrink it: “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” 1 John 2:2 Think about the direction of biblical history. God promised Abraham that all families of the earth would be blessed through him. Isaiah said God's Servant would be more than Israel's Redeemer: “I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6 Then Christ comes and sends His disciples to “all nations” (Matt. 28:19) and ultimately “all creation” (Mark 16:15). So the story of redemption isn't moving from a broad Old Testament provision toward a narrower New Testament one. It is exploding outward, from Israel to the nations, from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. From the blood of animals to the infinitely precious blood of Christ, from the shadow to the substance, from the temporary sacrifice to the Lamb of God, and from Israel's altar to “the sins of the whole world.” This is where the false dilemma needs to die. Someone will immediately ask: If Christ really died for every individual, why isn't every individual saved? Did His blood fail? But the Old Testament already teaches us not to reason that way. Having God's provision did not mean an Israelite could despise God, remain in unbelief and then boast, “A sacrifice exists, therefore I must be saved.” And the New Testament is even clearer. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.” (John 3:18) The dividing line isn't an insufficient sacrifice. It is Christ received or Christ rejected. And that makes the bronze serpent so beautiful. The poison was real. The dying were helpless. God designed the remedy. God provided the remedy. God attached His promise to the remedy. But He said: Look and live. Somehow nobody accuses the dying Israelite who looked of contributing to his own cure. Jesus then deliberately says: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.” John 3:14–15 There is the gospel. God provided the Lamb. God provided the blood. God provided the Son. God provided the gospel. God provides the life. The sinner provides no atonement whatsoever. He simply believes. And Paul has already told us not to call that a work: “To the one who does not work but believes...” Romans 4:5 So I don't need to shrink Christ's death to preserve God's glory. Quite the opposite. Adam's ruin reached every human being. God's answer in Christ is sufficient for every human being. The invitation therefore goes honestly to every human being. And every human being who believes may come without wondering whether there was actually blood shed for him. The tragedy of hell is not people discovering that they were born into Adam's catastrophe but Christ's sacrifice was never intended for them. The tragedy, in John's words, is this: “Light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light.” John 3:19 The shadow was generous. How much more the Lamb to whom the shadow pointed. And perhaps that is where the argument over Limited Atonement should have begun all along.
71
55
315
98,189
Mark Reeder retweeted
Will Ospreay comes to Teenage Wasteland with United Emipre, Swerve Strickland, Aussie Open, Ricochet, Oku and Amira, Alex Windsor, and Jon Moxley seeing him to the ring…. this is one of the greatest things AEW has ever done #AEWAllIn #AEW
All Elite Wrestling
28
306
2,301
55,433
Mark Reeder retweeted
That works!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
99
2,294
25,535
227,106
Mark Reeder retweeted
Repost if you reject Calvinism, and defend the goodness of God!
I believe that I and all humans have the freedom/agency/capacity/capability to reject God's will for our lives both in the day to day and ultimately. Or to say it another way, we have the ability to choose otherwise than what God wants us to do. I also believe that because God loves us and draws us all and by the grace that God gives to all people we can choose to repent and put our active faith in God as Lord and Savior of our lives. If you agree or disagree I'd love to hear why or why not or how you would word it differently.
6
18
30
6,024
I used to work with Nolan's dad, so obviously he will be my favorite (real football) player.
A dream realized. Homegrown Nolan Norris scores his first career MLS goal‼️
1
1
16
768
Mark Reeder retweeted
REPOST if you're PROUD to be an American! 🇺🇸
724
11,423
27,282
290,038
We definitely want Freddy and Elsa to stay. (And meet, marry, become US citizens, and make lots of patriotic babies)
4
32
390
Neither Barb nor I will sear our consciences to vote for Paxton or Talarico in the general election. This is our chosen candidate. If you don't think I'm "Christian" as a result, feel free to block me, I don't care.
Texas Republicans followed the orders of their Orange Master and nominated corrupt AG Ken Paxton for Senator. The good news is that John Cornyn, a poster boy for term limits, will leave office in a few months. For Texans who want an independent Senator who defends the Constitution, there is a third choice in November.
1
1
30
1,179
This is probably the best summarization of the issue I've found.
The Virginia Gerrymandering Controversy, Explained: Democrats before the election: “We will not gerrymander Virginia.” Democrats after winning: “Time to gerrymander Virginia as aggressively as possible.” Democrats celebrating victory: “We won! Too bad for you!” Virginia Supreme Court: “This map is unconstitutional. It must be redrawn.” Democrats’ response: “Overthrow the Supreme Court!” MAGA’s response: “We told you this would happen. The double standard is now obvious to everyone.”
26
738
For seven years, I worked with one of the former hostages at the American Embassy in Tehran. I knew him as SgtMajor Regis Ragan. I wish I knew his whereabouts (if he is still alive) so I could get his take on today's events.
2
39
879
Is this who @DentonCountyGOP wants to platform? A "pastor" who likes to do perverse things to children?
Replying to @NateSchatzline
In all seriousness Nate, are you touching these little boys privates before or after you tie them up and tape their mouths shut? #GottaLoveEm
27
1,186
I have openly cheered the death of another man. Not Charlie Kirk. A man (who I shall not name) whose damage done to my family, we are still dealing with, and it has been almost five years since then. But according to the public, I should be fired.
1
40
1,014
1/2 Sec. 36.02. BRIBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
1
29
1,013
2/2 (1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant...
1
20
733