COR3WIN

@vincent1701 @champwebdotnet It actually wouldn't be worth the money. That's the entire reason more than 33 entries is a struggle.

@champwebdotnet I am surprised Fox hasn't put pressure on getting a 34th car. The ratings boost would be worth the money.

For those of you who have been on here for awhile, you will likely know I have been the biggest proponent of the #fastest33. Beyond the historic precedent, the tradition and respecting the drivers who literally put their life on the line to make the Indy500, removing the qualifying attempts to make the race simply devalues the very race that has brought value to this series. Champ car and CART know all too well that without the Indy500 nothing else survives. What Indycar constantly refuses to understand is outweighing the short term vision with the long term value that is created. The hybrid engine was another short term vision that has had zero long term benefit. So yes 2026 isn’t going to have any bumping. Every driver on the entrant list will have a place in the race. I’m sure everyone is ecstatic on the inside. But this is just another step in reducing the value of the race. This, by a select few, will be viewed as “trashing the series” rather than taking a minute to realize the the short term decisions being made now, will have an extreme impact on the future. The decision to lock out non chartered teams is a stepping stone to the 25/8 rule. Mark my words.

@500Indy1911 @indycarfan25 It's a value add for the owners due to exclusivity and it provides the Series with more entry stability for long term budget planning. This latest news is in regards to supplier budget planning.

@indycarfan25 In what world are they great?

I don’t get it. So, the Meyer Shank route to a full-time IndyCar team is dead! So hypothetically, if Trackhouse wants a full-time IndyCar team, they have to buy a charter (valued at what) then run every race? Why would ANYONE do it that way? #IndyCar || #Dumb

@500Indy1911 The way it would work now is that Trackhouse would need to partner with an existing IndyCar team, provide funding for that car, get it's people involved, maybe even select a specific driver, and then they can weigh their options on whether to buy the team out completely or not.

@oqoqoowxkjxnn @President44Mo @chrismattlin @A_S12 @IndyCar It isn't irrelevant. No one can enter an IndyCar race unless IndyCar explicitly says they can. They denied RLL a 4th car entry at Milwaukee the same year as Portland.

@COR3WIN @President44Mo @chrismattlin @A_S12 @IndyCar Indycar agrees to all open entries?? That’s irrelevant.

.@IndyCar will stop letting open entries compete in races other than the Indy 500 after this season, in a move the series hopes will help suppliers plan better but could also assist in raising charter values. sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2026/…

@oqoqoowxkjxnn @President44Mo @chrismattlin @A_S12 @IndyCar Vips at Portland was an existing team running a 4th car to give a driver seat time while another driver was set to leave at the end of the season. And it only happened because IndyCar agreed to it, not because RLL just randomly showed up with a 4th car.

@President44Mo @chrismattlin @A_S12 @IndyCar Happened as recently as 2024 tbf with Vips at Portland

@DLand91 Dude, how the heck does this change anything from the last 6+ years? The last teams to run one off entries or limited schedules outside the 500 were Juncos and MSR when they were just getting started. This hasn't changed the entry dynamic at all.

Ew. That's not good at all. Good luck getting 33 in the future

@sualbu @PeterHamby @adamscochran No one gives a fuck what a retard living in a US protectorate thinks

@PeterHamby @adamscochran The US is such a ridiculous country. And the rest of the world is beyond tired of your nonsense, btw.

One note from the front of the ballroom tonight: Dan Scavino tried to start at USA! USA! chant after the threat — and absolutely no one wanted to hear it. Even Trump folks. Terrible.

@Christojt @zissou_1958 @realmikolson @Hairball911 Matthew 28:18 Colossians 1:15-20

@zissou_1958 @realmikolson @Hairball911 Where does the Bible say that the Gospel is "only Jesus"?

Exactly. Roman Catholics can point to fringe liberal or prosperity “pastors” (like Joel Osteen or Paula White) and claim they represent all Protestants and evangelicals. They don’t. We don’t submit to anti-biblical leadership simply because a false teacher carries the title “pastor.” Scripture explicitly warns against that over and over again. These figures are not our representatives, our pontiff, or any kind of supreme authority. They don’t even reflect the overwhelming majority of Protestant belief—historically or today. Not even close. The irony is that, in Roman Catholicism, the pope does function as a supreme authority. He is the central figure to whom Catholics are expected to fully submit—as their Canon Law states—their “intellect and will” (yes, it really says that). So when a fringe “evangelical pastor” teaches or does something unbiblical, we’re free to reject it outright. No defense required. Why? Because the Scripture is our authority, and everyone, including church leadership, is wholly bound to it alone. But when a pope promotes something outright unbiblical (which happens often, as seen below), Roman Catholics are still bound—at least in principle—to submit. It functions like a cult in this manner.

@SpinFictionX @catholiccom @JimmyAkin3000 Truth. But it ultimately removes the Catholic church as an ultimate authority figure. Christ is who we should strive for and it is His grace that will save us.

@catholiccom @JimmyAkin3000 I'll simplify it down to the nugget of truth. At the end of the day, God can save whoever He wants. Doesn't mean we shouldn't all do our best to follow Christ, something he asked us to do, besides repentance, which is a work.

"The thief on the cross was saved by faith alone, not baptism!" @JimmyAkin3000's answer:

@catholiccom @JimmyAkin3000 God doesn't make exceptions, he makes the rules, full stop. Not the Catholic church. You folks really don't have a good answer for this one.

@exanxc @MattisRedacted @grok There's a difference between history and scripture. Where the hell do you get off thinking Baptists and Evangelicals aren't aware of Christianity's history? Tradition is fine as long as people don't worship the tradition, Christ should ultimately always be the only focus.

@MattisRedacted Hey, @grok, how many Evangelicals and Baptists are there combined, and how many classical Protestants are there combined? Which group has more members?

Nowhere in the Bible are the deaths of Jesus' apostles recorded except for James the Great (excluding Judas Iscariot). So, where did you get the idea that the other 11 apostles (including Matthias) were also martyred? Church Tradition?

@frenbilt @Xaekai You can do that in the right lanes you fucking retard

The SUV is more dangerous to society than any left lane camper

@Memewhile321 @Butch30586594 You don't understand the purpose of baptism if you're using it to avoid made up theological legalese to avoid going to hell for a technicality. Jesus made the decision to get baptized, we should also willingly make that decision ourselves when we accept Him into our hearts.

@Butch30586594 You have to be in your 30s to be baptized?

Deflection...many such cases

@MrCasey62 How the hell do you guys take THIS so literally, but bend over backwards to claim shit like Mary being the new "ark of the covenant" and being sinless by reading between the lines and fully embracing metaphorical readings of verses? lol

“The Word” is the 2nd Person of the Trinity. “…became flesh” is the Incarnation: Jesus. So “The flesh we are to ‘eat’ (consume)” is Jesus. Catholics totally agree. And we got it straight from the Bible.

@edward_mullany @JoshuaTCharles That's kind of the rub of the Catholic church bud lol.. historical inconsistencies are common, especially early on. A lot of the current dogma didn't get clarified until between 1100-1500. Which is fine, but lets not pretend that modern Catholic practices rolled out in 100AD.

Mark Driscoll, who left the Catholic Church, quite literally claims that the way in which the Catholic Church prizes celibacy, virginity, and monasticism primes it to be dominated by Islam, because it makes men “soft.” Except—it doesn’t. The Catholic Church is still here, and has not been dominated by Islam for the entire 1,400 years of its existence. When Catholics called the Crusades, they prized all the things Driscoll claims are “soft” far more than they do even now. Some “softening.” Does he not realize that by this standard, he’s disqualified the vast majority of the greatest saints throughout all of Church history? Most of the Church Fathers (who were extremely hard, tough men) were “soft”? OUR LORD HIMSELF? Finally, Driscoll says Islam will dominate because it allows polygamy, violence, etc. He obviously does not endorse this. But he seems far more confident in Islam’s ability to transform the world than Jesus’s, who said “the meek shall inherit the earth.” Just astounding. Let us pray that this fallen away Catholic comes Home! x.com/PastorMark/sta…

@LVDGuy @SecretFire79 Catholic worship of Mary is going to immediately turn off any actual practicing true Christian from even considering it.

@SecretFire79 I’m convinced this RZ guy deep down knows Catholicism is true but for personal reasons just can’t admit it. He went from being ecumenical to polemical to now attacking in a way that seems downright personal. His whole theology is digging through ancient councils that “contradict”

Protestantism is on its last peg leg

@CahaLLoOla @lilsistweets @MrCasey62 The contents of Mass are not unique to the Catholic church. The specific tradition based elements within the current Catholic Mass (ie eucharist) do not predate new testament scriptures

@COR3WIN @lilsistweets @MrCasey62 Mass is older than all the new testament, for starters.

Evangelicals: “Catholics should dumb down everything to OUR level. They need to cater to US! They should make everything subject to OUR ignorance!” No, thanks, we’re Catholics. We do what’s right—whether it meets with your approval or not. 🤣

@carsonweber @renewingprotest No wonder Catholics have only a surface level understanding of scripture.

The Catholic Church historically forbade Bible reading in the vernacular, banned lay interpretation, punished those who questioned tradition, burned translations (Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.) and declared at Trent that anyone using Scripture against Catholic dogmas is anathema. If Catholic doctrines were truly supported by Scripture, none of this would have been necessary. Systems that fear Scripture always fear truth.

@lilsistweets @MrCasey62 None of your traditions and how they are presented, predate scripture

@COR3WIN @MrCasey62 Tradition predates scripture