(01-07-2023 06:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I don't see his speech as divisive, it's largely about diversity and Democratic values. The GOP is free to embrace or oppose both of those if they choose (and to their credit, I think they have worked to and have indeed succeeded at greatly increasing diversity within the GOP). There are only 2 direct mentions of the Republican party at all - in the beginning when they are welcomed along with the Democrats, and when Jeffries states that Democrats will look for common ground in this Congress regardless of party.

There's zero mention of the Republican party in the principles section, so if words like "GASLIGHTING", "JUDICIAL OVERREACH", "VOTER SUPPRESSION" and "XENOPHOBIA" make Republicans feel targeted, then I'd agree with them it is an allusion to the way they have behaved over the last few years. The ball is in their court to make sure those shoes don't fit moving forward, and THEN a speech like Leader Jeffries made this morning will be divisive and foolhardy.

You know full well he was making the comparison. Did you miss Mar-a-Lago and Q-Anon?

And let's talk about all the things Jeffries says the Dems are not and never will be or do.

AMERICAN VALUES OVER AUTOCRACY. Almost every Federal Dept. requesting accounts be banned on social media?

BENEVOLENCE OVER BIGOTRY. Listened to Cori Bush lately?

THE CONSTITUTION OVER THE CODE. Tell that to 1A and 2A.

DEMOCRACY OVER DEMAGOGUES. Cancel culture, anyone?

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVER EXTREMISM. Checked the economy under Biden?

FREEDOM OVER FASCISM. Definition. Fascism : a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government.

GOVERNING OVER GASLIGHTING. A KJP presser, anyone? Every day? Heck, this entire Jeffries soliloquy is the definition of gaslighting.

HOPEFULNESS OVER HATRED. Antifa. BLM.

INCLUSION OVER ISOLATION. Inclusion? Biden and others have called 40-50% of the country terrorists and enemies of the state.

JUSTICE OVER JUDICIAL OVERREACH. Falsified FISA Warrants? Or do you mean equal justice under the law? Yeah, right. Or maybe the FBI as a political weapon.

KNOWLEDGE OVER KANGAROO COURTS. Ever watch the 1st impeachment trial or the one-sided J6 hearings?

LIBERTY OVER LIMITATION. Yep. The Democrat Party is a paragon of liberty for all. Or not.

MATURITY OVER MAR-A-LAGO. Oops. A Trump reference.

NORMALCY OVER NEGATIVITY. Normalcy? Drag Queen shows for kids? Teachers with giant prosthetic breasts? Transgender biological males competing against biological females in sports?

OPPORTUNITY OVER OBSTRUCTION. Yeah, Dems have never obstructed anything in Congress or from the White House.

PEOPLE OVER POLITICS. Yeah, the Dems ALWAYS put people over politics. As long as you agree with them.

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES OVER Q-ANON. Oops. An extremist right-wing reference.

REASON OVER RACISM. Cori Bush again? Or almost any member of the Squad?

SUBSTANCE OVER SLANDER. Like the completely fabricated Trump Dossier?

TRIUMPH OVER TYRANNY. Like mask mandates? Business shutdowns?

UNDERSTANDING OVER UGLINESS. Violent riots. Burned buildings. Violence to stop conservative speakers on campus?

VOTING RIGHTS OVER VOTER SUPPRESSION. Like the right to stuff ballot boxes and vote for dead people and illegal aliens?

WORKING FAMILIES OVER THE WELL-CONNECTED. Wall Street. Jeffrey Epstein. Big Tech. University elites.

XENNIAL OVER XENOPHOBIA. You mean liking people from other countries b/c you think they will vote for you? Or liking them the way Martha's Vineyard treated 50 illegal aliens?

YES WE CAN OVER YOU CAN NOT DO IT. Yep. By any means necessary. Illegally spying on a presidential campaign, for instance?

ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION OVER ZERO SUM CONFRONTATION. LOL. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

(01-07-2023 06:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 06:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 05:49 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 02:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 01:15 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Apologies for the wall of text, here is the transcript. I'd like to ask our resident pearl clutchers to point out the inappropriateness.

The obvious implication is that the Republicans believe otherwise---and it was inappropriate to use such divisive, misleading, and insulting rhetoric in a ceremony designed to welcome a new speaker, swear in newly elected members, and to attempt to begin the 118th congress on a note of unity. Like his partys' leader---who claims a desire for unity---and then spews misinformation and red meat hate filled divisive rhetoric like he's on the campaign trail in front of Democrat true believer donors--Jeffies missed the mark. The Democrat penchant for having a complete lack of self awareness is nothing new and I would expect nothing less from the trash and selfish human debris that make up most of the todays Democrat politicians.

Jeffries speech was inappropriate----and not just a little. Contrast the divisive misleading insulting trash in bold above with the courteous, complimentary, self effacing, and uniting remarks made by McCarthy. Worse yet---Jeffries was supposed to be introducing the new Speaker---and he barely even said anything about him in his rambling 12 minute into. Jeffries was supposed to be welcoming new members---and barely even mentioned their presence. The difference in Jeffries remarks and McCarthy's was like the difference between lightness and darkness. There will be plenty of time for Jeffries to sow his lies, hate, and divisiveness---but last night was not the time or place. Last night was a moment of optimism---a time of welcoming, fresh starts, and unity----and Jeffries horribly missed the mark on all those themes---optiing instead to throw red meat hate filled rhetoric that was out place and showed he was completely out of touch with the moment.

It's hilarious to see a critique from the right of Jeffries speech based on divisiveness and lack of unity, when you've just spent days as the first majority party in 100 years unready and unable to elect a Speaker at the start of a new Congress.

Gamenole, there is a vast difference between the concept of intra-family disagreement, and Jefferies taking an opportunity to be classy and a statesman and instead pulling his pants down and taking a dump as he did there.

But this type of petty rudeness seems endemic to the left (even after the departure of Trump). One may not like Trump, but this type of ****** behavior is exemplified part and parcel by Nancy ripping up the Trump SoU speech, and seemingly continues with Jefferies' behavior by the content of his speech.

Be somewhat objective and identify that speech by Jefferies as such. Most even independent observers have and do. It was uncalled for, petty, and small.

Finally, I know I have seen your complaints in these pages about how low the level of discourse out Congress has leveled out at, and how you would enjoy an elevation. But here, when one need not sink to the level of petty back biting at the occasion, you seemingly now defend it. A little bit of a 'shame on you' here for that.

I don't see his speech as divisive, it's largely about diversity and Democratic values. The GOP is free to embrace or oppose both of those if they choose (and to their credit, I think they have worked to and have indeed succeeded at greatly increasing diversity within the GOP). There are only 2 direct mentions of the Republican party at all - in the beginning when they are welcomed along with the Democrats, and when Jeffries states that Democrats will look for common ground in this Congress regardless of party.

There's zero mention of the Republican party in the principles section, so if words like "GASLIGHTING", "JUDICIAL OVERREACH", "VOTER SUPPRESSION" and "XENOPHOBIA" make Republicans feel targeted, then I'd agree with them it is an allusion to the way they have behaved over the last few years. The ball is in their court to make sure those shoes don't fit moving forward, and THEN a speech like Leader Jeffries made this morning will be divisive and foolhardy.

bull****.

First, I guess you dont realize that the counterpoint values are the ones that the progressives mention ad infinitum without letup with respect to anything approaching neo-liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. But Jeffries doesnt tire of the '**** rhetorical' reference that seems ingrained in Democrats and comes out like a dead frog spasming when an electric jolt hits it. The references that progressives cant turn away from when the need for an automatic kneejerk rhetorical slur is needed.

I would hope an educated and well-versed guy like you might recognize those counterpoints for what they are and what they are intended as. But dont give us the bull**** answer that they were not directed at Republicans.

Second, in your counterpoint attempt you have a load of chutzpah ignoring "autocracy", "bigotry", "demagogues", "extremism", "fascisms", "hatred". "judicial overreach", "kangaroo courts", "obstruction", "Q-anon", "racism", "tyranny", "ugliness", "voter suppression", "xenophobia", and 'zero sum confrontation" in your race to justify the crappy response.

16 of them. Honestly Im sick and **** tired of some asshat Dem tossing those empty verbal bombs.

16 of 28 mind you. A majority.

Good grief. Be honest. Your answer, above, with due respect, is misdirectional bull****. You are typically a straight shooter, but on this one you are *way* off in the woods in the bias and misdirection department.

After that spasm of cherry picking and avoidance, how does one take your comment above anywhere near serious?

I suggest *you* cut with the "gaslighting" (funny, #7 there, mind you).

The two posts above this one lay out the truth of Jeffries attacking the right in his speech. I chose to not respond to Gamenole's smarmy "explanation". Everyone knows it is complete BS.

(01-07-2023 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 06:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 06:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 05:49 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 02:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The obvious implication is that the Republicans believe otherwise---and it was inappropriate to use such divisive, misleading, and insulting rhetoric in a ceremony designed to welcome a new speaker, swear in newly elected members, and to attempt to begin the 118th congress on a note of unity. Like his partys' leader---who claims a desire for unity---and then spews misinformation and red meat hate filled divisive rhetoric like he's on the campaign trail in front of Democrat true believer donors--Jeffies missed the mark. The Democrat penchant for having a complete lack of self awareness is nothing new and I would expect nothing less from the trash and selfish human debris that make up most of the todays Democrat politicians.

Jeffries speech was inappropriate----and not just a little. Contrast the divisive misleading insulting trash in bold above with the courteous, complimentary, self effacing, and uniting remarks made by McCarthy. Worse yet---Jeffries was supposed to be introducing the new Speaker---and he barely even said anything about him in his rambling 12 minute into. Jeffries was supposed to be welcoming new members---and barely even mentioned their presence. The difference in Jeffries remarks and McCarthy's was like the difference between lightness and darkness. There will be plenty of time for Jeffries to sow his lies, hate, and divisiveness---but last night was not the time or place. Last night was a moment of optimism---a time of welcoming, fresh starts, and unity----and Jeffries horribly missed the mark on all those themes---optiing instead to throw red meat hate filled rhetoric that was out place and showed he was completely out of touch with the moment.

It's hilarious to see a critique from the right of Jeffries speech based on divisiveness and lack of unity, when you've just spent days as the first majority party in 100 years unready and unable to elect a Speaker at the start of a new Congress.

Gamenole, there is a vast difference between the concept of intra-family disagreement, and Jefferies taking an opportunity to be classy and a statesman and instead pulling his pants down and taking a dump as he did there.

But this type of petty rudeness seems endemic to the left (even after the departure of Trump). One may not like Trump, but this type of ****** behavior is exemplified part and parcel by Nancy ripping up the Trump SoU speech, and seemingly continues with Jefferies' behavior by the content of his speech.

Be somewhat objective and identify that speech by Jefferies as such. Most even independent observers have and do. It was uncalled for, petty, and small.

Finally, I know I have seen your complaints in these pages about how low the level of discourse out Congress has leveled out at, and how you would enjoy an elevation. But here, when one need not sink to the level of petty back biting at the occasion, you seemingly now defend it. A little bit of a 'shame on you' here for that.

I don't see his speech as divisive, it's largely about diversity and Democratic values. The GOP is free to embrace or oppose both of those if they choose (and to their credit, I think they have worked to and have indeed succeeded at greatly increasing diversity within the GOP). There are only 2 direct mentions of the Republican party at all - in the beginning when they are welcomed along with the Democrats, and when Jeffries states that Democrats will look for common ground in this Congress regardless of party.

There's zero mention of the Republican party in the principles section, so if words like "GASLIGHTING", "JUDICIAL OVERREACH", "VOTER SUPPRESSION" and "XENOPHOBIA" make Republicans feel targeted, then I'd agree with them it is an allusion to the way they have behaved over the last few years. The ball is in their court to make sure those shoes don't fit moving forward, and THEN a speech like Leader Jeffries made this morning will be divisive and foolhardy.

bull****.

First, I guess you dont realize that the counterpoint values are the ones that the progressives mention ad infinitum without letup with respect to anything approaching neo-liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. But Jeffries doesnt tire of the '**** rhetorical' reference that seems ingrained in Democrats and comes out like a dead frog spasming when an electric jolt hits it. The references that progressives cant turn away from when the need for an automatic kneejerk rhetorical slur is needed.

I would hope an educated and well-versed guy like you might recognize those counterpoints for what they are and what they are intended as. But dont give us the bull**** answer that they were not directed at Republicans.

Second, in your counterpoint attempt you have a load of chutzpah ignoring "autocracy", "bigotry", "demagogues", "extremism", "fascisms", "hatred". "judicial overreach", "kangaroo courts", "obstruction", "Q-anon", "racism", "tyranny", "ugliness", "voter suppression", "xenophobia", and 'zero sum confrontation" in your race to justify the crappy response.

16 of them. Honestly Im sick and **** tired of some asshat Dem tossing those empty verbal bombs.

16 of 28 mind you. A majority.

Good grief. Be honest. Your answer, above, with due respect, is misdirectional bull****. You are typically a straight shooter, but on this one you are *way* off in the woods in the bias and misdirection department.

After that spasm of cherry picking and avoidance, how does one take your comment above anywhere near serious?

I suggest *you* cut with the "gaslighting" (funny, #7 there, mind you).

Oh, they're absolutely directed at Republicans. But those negative words don't apply to ALL Republicans or to every Republican proposal. That's why I don't find it divisive, he didn't call out the party by name or slam traditional Republican values like lower spending and limited government. Instead he made clear which perceived factions and policies of the GOP the Democratic caucus will oppose at every turn. A leader of the opposition speech is different from a Speaker speech, a Minority Leader does not serve the entire House the way a Speaker has to constitutionally, whether we like them or not. An opposition leader won't remain leader long if their rank and file don't feel like the other side is being vigorously opposed. I will not be in the least offended if a GOP minority leader gives the same speech someday after the election of Speaker Jeffries. Politics ain't beanbag, and perceived differences must be highlighted after your caucus spends hours voting for you 15 times over the last 4 days.

(01-07-2023 08:51 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 06:40 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 06:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 05:49 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  It's hilarious to see a critique from the right of Jeffries speech based on divisiveness and lack of unity, when you've just spent days as the first majority party in 100 years unready and unable to elect a Speaker at the start of a new Congress.

Gamenole, there is a vast difference between the concept of intra-family disagreement, and Jefferies taking an opportunity to be classy and a statesman and instead pulling his pants down and taking a dump as he did there.

But this type of petty rudeness seems endemic to the left (even after the departure of Trump). One may not like Trump, but this type of ****** behavior is exemplified part and parcel by Nancy ripping up the Trump SoU speech, and seemingly continues with Jefferies' behavior by the content of his speech.

Be somewhat objective and identify that speech by Jefferies as such. Most even independent observers have and do. It was uncalled for, petty, and small.

Finally, I know I have seen your complaints in these pages about how low the level of discourse out Congress has leveled out at, and how you would enjoy an elevation. But here, when one need not sink to the level of petty back biting at the occasion, you seemingly now defend it. A little bit of a 'shame on you' here for that.

I don't see his speech as divisive, it's largely about diversity and Democratic values. The GOP is free to embrace or oppose both of those if they choose (and to their credit, I think they have worked to and have indeed succeeded at greatly increasing diversity within the GOP). There are only 2 direct mentions of the Republican party at all - in the beginning when they are welcomed along with the Democrats, and when Jeffries states that Democrats will look for common ground in this Congress regardless of party.

There's zero mention of the Republican party in the principles section, so if words like "GASLIGHTING", "JUDICIAL OVERREACH", "VOTER SUPPRESSION" and "XENOPHOBIA" make Republicans feel targeted, then I'd agree with them it is an allusion to the way they have behaved over the last few years. The ball is in their court to make sure those shoes don't fit moving forward, and THEN a speech like Leader Jeffries made this morning will be divisive and foolhardy.

bull****.

First, I guess you dont realize that the counterpoint values are the ones that the progressives mention ad infinitum without letup with respect to anything approaching neo-liberalism, conservatism, or libertarianism. But Jeffries doesnt tire of the '**** rhetorical' reference that seems ingrained in Democrats and comes out like a dead frog spasming when an electric jolt hits it. The references that progressives cant turn away from when the need for an automatic kneejerk rhetorical slur is needed.

I would hope an educated and well-versed guy like you might recognize those counterpoints for what they are and what they are intended as. But dont give us the bull**** answer that they were not directed at Republicans.

Second, in your counterpoint attempt you have a load of chutzpah ignoring "autocracy", "bigotry", "demagogues", "extremism", "fascisms", "hatred". "judicial overreach", "kangaroo courts", "obstruction", "Q-anon", "racism", "tyranny", "ugliness", "voter suppression", "xenophobia", and 'zero sum confrontation" in your race to justify the crappy response.

16 of them. Honestly Im sick and **** tired of some asshat Dem tossing those empty verbal bombs.

16 of 28 mind you. A majority.

Good grief. Be honest. Your answer, above, with due respect, is misdirectional bull****. You are typically a straight shooter, but on this one you are *way* off in the woods in the bias and misdirection department.

After that spasm of cherry picking and avoidance, how does one take your comment above anywhere near serious?

I suggest *you* cut with the "gaslighting" (funny, #7 there, mind you).

Oh, they're absolutely directed at Republicans. But those negative words don't apply to ALL Republicans or to every Republican proposal. That's why I don't find it divisive, he didn't call out the party by name or slam traditional Republican values like lower spending and limited government. Instead he made clear which perceived factions and policies of the GOP the Democratic caucus will oppose at every turn. A leader of the opposition speech is different from a Speaker speech, a Minority Leader does not serve the entire House the way a Speaker has to constitutionally, whether we like them or not. An opposition leader won't remain leader long if their rank and file don't feel like the other side is being vigorously opposed. I will not be in the least offended if a GOP minority leader gives the same speech someday after the election of Speaker Jeffries. Politics ain't beanbag, and perceived differences must be highlighted after your caucus spends hours voting for you 15 times over the last 4 days.

Again, I have heard you numerous times state that how bad you look on the level that politics has fallen in this country.

Now, when there is a chance to denote even a neutral comment, you jump at the opportunity to defend the attacking, cheap comment and denote 'politics aint beanbags'.

I guess it doesnt seem weird to you that in most instances you decry that level of discourse, and in this case when Jefferies didnt have to pull out his wanger and piss over the fire, you wholeheartedly defend it. It seems highly hypocritical on your behalf.

I guess your comments on decrying the level of political discourse I need to take as simply highly situational. Sad -- I took you as a more objective type of dude.

dayum, tanq ... I'm WYSIWYG!

that li'l boy 'nole is dangerous via his continual 'posturing' ... was never a doubt in nuts zongo's mind ...

(01-07-2023 01:15 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  Apologies for the wall of text, here is the transcript. I'd like to ask our resident pearl clutchers to point out the inappropriateness.

Quote:DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS AND THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS, IT'S MY HIGH HONOR AND DISTINCT PRIVILEGE TO FINALLY WELCOME ALL OF YOU TO THE 118TH CONGRESS.

LET ME JUST BEGIN BY THANKING MY GOOD FRIEND, PETE AGUILAR, FOR HIS VERY GENEROUS WORDS OF INTRODUCTION AND FOR PLACING MY NAME INTO NOMINATION, A TOTAL OF NINE TIMES. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK MY OTHER COLLEAGUES FROM THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS FOR YOUR GENEROUS WORDS OF NOMINATION, AS WELL AS JIM CLYBURN, KATHERINE CLARK, TED LEWAN VERONICA ESCOBAR. AND I THANK MY COLLEAGUES AND MY FRIENDS IN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE, FOUR YOUR STRENGTH, FOR YOUR FRIENDSHIP AND FOR YOUR PURPOSE AND FOR YOUR UNANIMOUS SUPPORT.

I SIMPLY WANT TO SAY THAT SHOWING OF STRENGTH IS NOT FOR ANY ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL. IT WILL BE A SHOWING OF STRENGTH THROUGHOUT THE 118TH CONGRESS, UNANIMITY OF PURPOSE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

BEFORE I PROCEED ANY FURTHER, LET ME BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLELADY FROM THE GREAT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE ICONIC, THE HEROIC, LEGENDARY NANCY PELOSI. .. . . AND WITHOUT QUESTION IN MY MIND, SPEAKER EMERITA PELOSI WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE GREATEST SPEAKER OF ALL TIME.
THROUGHOUT HER TIME -- THROUGHOUT HER TIME IN CONGRESS, SHE'S BEEN A LEGENDARY LEGISLATOR, A FABULOUS FACILITATOR, AND A NO-NONSENSE NEGOTIATOR. WE KNOW THAT NANCY PELOSI IS A WOMAN OF FAITH, A LOVING WIFE, A MOTHER OF FIVE, A GRANDMOTHER OF NINE. A DEFENDERS OF DEMOCRACY. A VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS. AND A POWERFUL CHAMPION FOR THE CHILDREN, THE CLIMATE, CHARM CITY, CALIFORNIA, THE CAUCUS, THE CONGRESS, THE COUNTRY, AND THE CONSTITUTION.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER, FOR ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE, IT IS AN HONOR TO STAND ON YOUR BROAD SHOULDERS.

AS WELL -- AS WELL AS THE SHOULDERS OF THE GREAT STENY HOYER AND THE GREAT JIM CLYBURN, TWO CONSEQUENTIAL LEADERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

SCRIPTURE SAYS IN GALATIANS, LET US NOT BECOME WEARY IN DOING GOOD FOR AT THE PROPER TIME WE WILL REAP A HARVEST IF WE DO NOT GIVE UP.

OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH PRESIDENT BIDEN AND OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE HAVE BEEN HARD AT WORK ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, GETTING BIG THINGS DONE.

WE PASSED THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN.
SAVED THE ECONOMY FROM A DEEP RECESSION.
PUT SHOTS IN ARM, MONEY IN POCKETS AND KIDS BACK IN SCHOOL.
WE PASSED THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS ACT. TO CREATE MILLIONS OF GOOD-PAYING JOBS. FIX OUR CRUMBLING BRIDGES, ROADS, TUNNELS, OUR AIRPORTS, OUR SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM, MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND ENSURE HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS IN EVERY SINGLE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY.
WE PASSED GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS THAT WILL SAVE LIVES AND MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER.
WE PASSED THE CHIPS IN SCIENCE ACT TO BRING DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING JOBS BACK HOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ENSURE THAT OUR WORK FORCE HAS THE SKILLS TO SUCCEED IN THE 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY AND
WE PASSED THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT TO STRIKE A DRAMATIC BLOW AGAINST THE CLIMATE CRISIS, SET OUR PLANET ON A SUSTAINABLE TRAJECTORY FORWARD, LOWER ENERGY COSTS, STRENGTHEN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS AND DRIVE DOWN THE HIGH PRICE OF LIFE-SAVING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.

IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL CONGRESSES IN AMERICAN HISTORY. PRESIDENT BIDEN GETS THE JOB DONE AND THE D IN DEMOCRAT STANDS FOR DELIVER. SO OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, OVER THE NEXT -- OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS -- AS WE BEGIN THIS 118TH CONGRESS, LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT FOR LOWER COSTS. LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS FOR BETTER PAYING JOBS. LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS FOR SAFER COMMUNITIES. LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY. LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS TO PUT AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS. LET US CONTINUE TO FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN EVERY SINGLE ZIP CODE AND LET US CONTINUE TO
FIGHT IN THIS CONGRESS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

BECAUSE -- BECAUSE AS DEMOCRATS WE DO BELIEVE IN A COUNTRY FOR EVERYONE.
WE DO BELIEVE IN A COUNTRY FOR EVERYONE. A COUNTRY THAT
PROVIDES FOR THE POOR.
WORKS FOR WORKING FAMILIES.
MAKES SENSE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.
STANDS UP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.
INNOVATES IN THE INNER CITY.
STRENGTHENS SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES,
HELPS OUT THE HEARTLAND AND
REVITALIZES RURAL AMERICA.

WE BELIEVE IN A COUNTRY WITH
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND YES,
WE BELIEVE IN A COUNTRY WITH THE PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER.

WE BELIEVE -- THAT IN AMERICA OUR DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH. IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS.
AN ECONOMIC STRENGTH, A COMPETITIVE STRENGTH, A CULTURAL STRENGTH. OUR DIVERSITY IS A STRENGTH. IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS.
WE ARE A GORGEOUS MOSAIC OF PEOPLE FROM THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
AS JOHN LEWIS WOULD SOMETIMES REMIND US ON THIS FLOOR, WE MAY HAVE COME OVER ON DIFFERENT SHIPS BUT WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT NOW.
WE ARE WHITE, WE ARE BLACK, WE ARE LATINO, WE ARE ASIAN, WE ARE NATIVE AMERICAN,
WE ARE CHRISTIAN, WE ARE JEWISH, WE ARE MUSLIM, WE ARE HINDU,
WE ARE RELIGIOUS, WE ARE SECULAR,
WE ARE GAY, WE ARE STRAIGHT,
WE ARE YOUNG, WE ARE OLDER,
WE ARE WOMEN, WE ARE MEN, WE ARE CITIZENS, WE ARE DREAMERS,

OUT OF MANY WE ARE ONE. THAT'S WHAT MAKES AMERICA A GREAT COUNTRY. AND NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF HATERS ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE US, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET ANYONE TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US, NOT NOW, NOT EVER. THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY.

THE FACT THAT I'M ABLE TO STAND UP HERE TODAY IS ANOTHER DATA POINT IN THAT NARRATIVE. I WAS BORN IN BROOKLYN HOSPITAL, RAISED IN A WORKING CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD IN CROWN HEIGHTS, GREW UP IN THE CORNERSTONE BAPTIST CHURCH. STARTED OFF IN THE CRADLE ROLL DEPARTMENT, SOMEHOW SURVIVED THE VIOLENCE OF THE CRACK COCAINE EPIDEMIC AND WOUND UP HERE IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AS THE HIGHEST RANKING DEMOCRAT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. AMERICA TRULY A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY. GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

SO ON THIS FIRST DAY, LET US COMMIT TO THE AMERICAN DREAM. A DREAM THAT PROMISES THAT IF YOU WORK HARD AND PLAY BY THE RULES, YOU SHOULD BE TABLE PROVIDE A COMFORTABLE LIVING FOR YOURSELF AND FOR YOUR FAMILY. EDUCATE YOUR CHILDREN. PURCHASE A HOME. AND ONE DAY RETIRE WITH GRACE AND DIGNITY.

LET US COMMIT ON THIS FIRST DAY TO LIFT UP THE AMERICAN DREAM FOR EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS NATION.

NOW I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MOMENT OF TRANSITION.
AS WE TRANSITION FROM ONE CONGRESS TO THE NEXT, FROM ONE MAJORITY TO THE NEXT. FROM A YEAR OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, A YEAR OF ACCOMPLISHMENT TO A YEAR OF AMBIGUITY. A MOMENT OF TRANSITION.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTANDABLY AFTER THE EVENTS OF THIS WEEK RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONGRESS IS AT A FORK IN THE ROAD. AND ARE ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT DIRECTION WILL WE CHOOSE?
ON THIS FIRST DAY, I DO NOT PRETEND TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON BEHALF OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE. BUT WE DO EXTEND OUR HAND OF PARTNERSHIP TO YOU. AND WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE EXTEND AND INTEND TO TRY TO FIND COMMON GROUND, WHENEVER AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
NOT AS DEMOCRATS, NOT AS REPUBLICANS, NOT AS INDEPENDENTS, BUT AS AMERICANS.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE WILL NEVER COMPROMISE OUR PRINCIPLES. HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL ALWAYS PUT
AMERICAN VALUES OVER AUTOCRACY.
BENEVOLENCE OVER BIGOTRY. THE
CONSTITUTION OVER THE CODE.
DEMOCRACY OVER DEMAGOGUES.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVER EXTREMISM.
FREEDOM OVER FASCISM.
GOVERNING OVER GASLIGHTING.
HOPEFULNESS OVER HATRED.
INCLUSION OVER ISOLATION.
JUSTICE OVER JUDICIAL OVERREACH.
KNOWLEDGE OVER KANGAROO COURTS.
LIBERTY OVER LIMITATION.
MATURITY OVER MAR-A-LAGO.
NORMALCY OVER NEGATIVITY.
OPPORTUNITY OVER OBSTRUCTION.
PEOPLE OVER POLITICS.
QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES OVER Q-ANON.
REASON OVER RACISM.
SUBSTANCE OVER SLANDER.
TRIUMPH OVER TYRANNY.
UNDERSTANDING OVER UGLINESS.
VOTING RIGHTS OVER VOTER SUPPRESSION.
WORKING FAMILIES OVER THE WELL-CONNECTED.
XENNIAL OVER XENOPHOBIA.
YES WE CAN OVER YOU CAN NOT DO IT. AND
ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION OVER ZERO SUM CONFRONTATION

WE WILL ALWAYS DO THE RIGHT THING BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
SO LET US NOT GROW WEARY OF DOING GOOD. FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL REAP THE BENEFIT OF THE HARVEST IF WE DO NOT GIVE UP.
GOD BLESS YOU. GOD BLESS THE HOUSE. AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

The whole last long paragraph he was a total ******* calling names. Total *******.

Bad Lip Reading

Quote:AMERICAN VALUES OVER AUTOCRACY.
BENEVOLENCE OVER BIGOTRY. THE
CONSTITUTION OVER THE CODE.
DEMOCRACY OVER DEMAGOGUES.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OVER EXTREMISM.
FREEDOM OVER FASCISM.
GOVERNING OVER GASLIGHTING.
HOPEFULNESS OVER HATRED.
INCLUSION OVER ISOLATION.
JUSTICE OVER JUDICIAL OVERREACH.
KNOWLEDGE OVER KANGAROO COURTS.
LIBERTY OVER LIMITATION.
MATURITY OVER MAR-A-LAGO.
NORMALCY OVER NEGATIVITY.
OPPORTUNITY OVER OBSTRUCTION.
PEOPLE OVER POLITICS.
QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES OVER Q-ANON.
REASON OVER RACISM.
SUBSTANCE OVER SLANDER.
TRIUMPH OVER TYRANNY.
UNDERSTANDING OVER UGLINESS.
VOTING RIGHTS OVER VOTER SUPPRESSION.
WORKING FAMILIES OVER THE WELL-CONNECTED.
XENNIAL OVER XENOPHOBIA.
YES WE CAN OVER YOU CAN NOT DO IT. AND
ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION OVER ZERO SUM CONFRONTATION

Where to begin...

A: Forcing gender affirmation on a population that's opposed to it.
C: Seriously? Since when is instructing tech companies & banks to shut down those who hold opposing political views considered supporting the Constitution?
F: Freedom? Again, shutting down opposition speech. Vax mandates. Forcing transgender bathrooms.
J: Justice? Defund the police? Stopping cash bail?
K: OK, this one just screams irony.f
N: what's normal about gay marriage or transgender acceptance?
P: These should actually be reversed. Heck, pretty much every letter should be reversed.
S: From the side that uses shame to shut down opposition.

That's just a quick review.

(01-07-2023 03:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 03:52 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Jeffries is just another angry Leftist.

Of course he is and his speech was intended to please the rest of his angry sycophants. It was unnecessary and a carefully cloaked attack on the right.

Yeah, and boo ******* hoo.

(01-09-2023 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 03:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 03:52 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Jeffries is just another angry Leftist.

Of course he is and his speech was intended to please the rest of his angry sycophants. It was unnecessary and a carefully cloaked attack on the right.

Yeah, and boo ******* hoo.

Given that, Tom, I suggest you *never* ***** about anyone on the right being venal or not exhibiting class.

You know it could have, and should have, been put forward in a much better manner. Shame on you for being nothing but partisan about it.

Thomas is having a Bad day.

Another major contribution to the discussion by commie Tommy.

He never fails to disappoint.

(01-09-2023 02:52 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  Thomas is having a Bad day.

like any other day, ol' boy forgot to take his protein pills and put his helmet on ...

BREAKING: Mike Rogers to step down from House GOP steering committee after ballot brawl.

On Monday, it was revealed that Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama is planning on stepping down from the Steering and Policy Committees of the United States House of Representatives.

According to Politico, Rogers said the move would likely happen later this week and confirmed the plan on Monday morning, noting that his departure from the committee is not finalized and wasn’t encouraged by fellow colleagues.

(01-09-2023 02:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 03:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2023 03:52 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Jeffries is just another angry Leftist.

Of course he is and his speech was intended to please the rest of his angry sycophants. It was unnecessary and a carefully cloaked attack on the right.

Yeah, and boo ******* hoo.

Just don't complain when the other side does the exact same thing.

(01-09-2023 03:11 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  BREAKING: Mike Rogers to step down from House GOP steering committee after ballot brawl.

On Monday, it was revealed that Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama is planning on stepping down from the Steering and Policy Committees of the United States House of Representatives.

According to Politico, Rogers said the move would likely happen later this week and confirmed the plan on Monday morning, noting that his departure from the committee is not finalized and wasn’t encouraged by fellow colleagues.

I met Mike Rogers briefly about a year ago. My FIL actually had a conversation with him.. My FIL said he's a politician. No redeeming factors about him to be found.

More fallout as Crenshaw will NOT be the head of the homeland security committee. womp womp

Next time, be a little more careful of your "f*ck you" twitter tirades, Dannie.

(01-09-2023 03:23 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 03:11 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  BREAKING: Mike Rogers to step down from House GOP steering committee after ballot brawl.

On Monday, it was revealed that Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama is planning on stepping down from the Steering and Policy Committees of the United States House of Representatives.

According to Politico, Rogers said the move would likely happen later this week and confirmed the plan on Monday morning, noting that his departure from the committee is not finalized and wasn’t encouraged by fellow colleagues.

I met Mike Rogers briefly about a year ago. My FIL actually had a conversation with him.. My FIL said he's a politician. No redeeming factors about him to be found.

Worst toupee in Congress.

(01-09-2023 04:02 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 03:23 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-09-2023 03:11 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  BREAKING: Mike Rogers to step down from House GOP steering committee after ballot brawl.

On Monday, it was revealed that Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama is planning on stepping down from the Steering and Policy Committees of the United States House of Representatives.

According to Politico, Rogers said the move would likely happen later this week and confirmed the plan on Monday morning, noting that his departure from the committee is not finalized and wasn’t encouraged by fellow colleagues.

I met Mike Rogers briefly about a year ago. My FIL actually had a conversation with him.. My FIL said he's a politician. No redeeming factors about him to be found.

Worst toupee in Congress.

Agree. That dude is my Congressman, but we never have anybody good running who can get enough votes to replace him. Once somebody is in office, most people tend to vote for the incumbent, probably b/c they don't really follow politics, and just recognize the name.

I've never seen him go off on anybody like he did on Gaetz, but that may be b/c C-Span usually is limited to a fixed position facing the Speaker's podium.