Every clown show must come to an end. Thank God!

Somebody better order pizza. It's past my bedtime and I'm hungry.

quote:

Originally posted by bald1:
I'm confused. I hear about concessions RINO McCarthy made but nothing about them reduced to writing as allegedly promised. What's the truth?

It's my understanding that those concessions are part of/incorporated into the Rules Package, which gets voted on by the entire House.

So close… 15 rounds of voting, not 16.

I went to bed before results were in. As expected but Thomas Massie on a new Church Committee to investigate 3 letter agencies ia great thing. Tucker has an interview - it's a bright spot out of all this.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Why are we cheering this shitshow?

If you have to ask...

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:
Why are we cheering this shitshow?

You're absolutely correct.

McCarthy should have accepted the terms of the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives the first fucking day. This "shitshow" was all on McCarthy alone, thinking he deserved the Speaker role while abandoning the principles of conservative government. He wanted to be "anointed" Speaker on his own RINO terms, some of these created by Pelosi years before. The ones resisting his nonsense, and most of us in this forum, are fucking sick and tired of business as usual in the House of Representatives.

On a different note, Donald Trump played a crucial role in getting through the negotiations. Jim Jordan, Donalds, Marjorie Taylor Greene all state that his role was huge.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...-across-finish-line/

quote:

Originally posted by doublesharp:
I went to bed before results were in. As expected but Thomas Massie on a new Church Committee to investigate 3 letter agencies ia great thing. Tucker has an interview - it's a bright spot out of all this.

Very unexpected and pleasing outcome.

Massey says he has a plan to get around all the obfuscation, stalling, and blocking.

Glad that's over! Now the Republicans can get down to their normal petty bickering among themselves, and getting nothing done for another two years.

How stupid is this?

Mike Rogers lunges at Matt Gaetz during House speaker voting, other members forced to intervene

Yeah, they need to hold you back, tough guy.

Grow the fuck up

Edit to add FOX link to Tucker/Massie interview

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6318310564112

Looks like youtube has blocked the Tucker/Massie interview but here is a copy & paste of the text per Mediate.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cl...tee-probing-the-fbi/

Days after Tucker Carlson said Kevin McCarthy must not be allowed to become House speaker unless he agrees to two very specific conditions, one of them was confirmed Friday night.

Hours before the 14th House vote in which it was widely believed the GOP leader would finally win the gavel, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) joined Carlson’s Fox News show to discuss a new committee to probe the FBI.

On Tuesday’s edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight, the host praised McCarthy as a politician, but called him “politically agnostic.” He then said McCarthy must be denied the speakership unless he agreed to two items.

Carlson called for the release of all footage from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He also specifically called on McCarthy to appoint Massie to chair a new “Frank Church committee” to study the FBI about election interference.

As if Republicans negotiating with McCarthy were watching, Massie informed Carlson he would be part of a new Church-style committee to investigate government agencies. Massie wondered if the host might be “clairvoyant.”


In 1975, Sen. Frank Church (D-ID) led a select committee to investigate abuses by the U.S. intelligence community.

Carlson noted the history of such committees before he noted McCarthy would likely end up becoming speaker. That was when he introduced Massie, who announced that such a committee will indeed be formed.

“It looks like I will probably be on that committee, but I can’t say that I will run it,” Massie said. The congressman added he and others had been working to form their own “Church Committee.”

“Thank you for suggesting I should be on it,” he said. “I don’t know if you are clairvoyant or just made the future happen, but it’s happening. We were making sure this committee wasn’t going to be fenced in and it wasn’t going to be a show committee. We wanted to make sure we have full jurisdiction.”

Massie assured Carlson the committee will have few barriers to take on any “three-letter agency” its members believed had violated Americans’ Constitutional rights.

“We’ve secured a guarantee that can go wherever the evidence leads us,” the Kentucky Republican said...

I'm sure all the details will come out on this soon enough, but I'm wondering if Gaetz changed his vote so that the 15th 'Round' resulted in a clean tally for McCarthy. Having achieved their goal(s) re: concessions, I see it as a gesture to McCarthy that the final tally would reflect NO votes for other nominees on the GOP side of the ballot, and all of those dissenting merely voting present.

Concessions:

Souther border security plan
Budget that stops debt ceiling increase
End Covid mandates and funding
Committee probes of government agencies
72 hours to read bill/single subject bill
1 member can make motion to remove speaker

All good things. And MANY so-called republicans though these hold outs were traitors! Fuck that. Time for a new party of real conservatives since the republican party is now Demi-light.

quote:

Originally posted by Patriot:
All good things. And MANY so-called republicans though these hold outs were traitors!

Yes, and the idiotic leftists were laughing so hard because the Republicans aren't in lock-step.

I guess it's much less funny to them now that they see the results of this struggle.

Ain't that right, you clueless commies?

I'm pretty amped up about the Church committee and Massie. Kentucky district 4 is s of Cincinnati and east of Louisville so he gets local press. I'm a big fan and for those unfamiliar I'm going to brag on him a little.

From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie

Early life, education, and business career
Massie was born in Huntington, West Virginia.[6] He grew up in Vanceburg, Kentucky.[6] He met his wife Rhonda at Lewis County High School in Vanceburg.[6][7] His father was a beer distributor.[6]

Massie earned a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and a master of science degree in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[8] He participated in the MIT Solar Car Club, which took second place behind a Swiss team in the Solar and Electric 500 at the Phoenix International Raceway in 1991. At the time, the team set several world records including a lap speed in excess of 62 mph (99 km/h), and straightaway speeds in excess of 70 mph (112 km/h).[9]

In 1992, Massie won MIT's then-named 2.70 ("Introduction to Design and Manufacturing", now named 2.007) Design Competition.[10] MIT professor Woodie Flowers, who pioneered the 2.70 contest, mentioned that Massie watched this contest on television in seventh grade and wanted to come to MIT to win it.[11]

In 1993, at MIT, Massie and his wife started a company called SensAble Devices Inc.[12] He completed his bachelor's degree the same year and wrote his thesis, Design of a three-degree of Freedom force-reflecting haptic interface.[13][14] In 1995 Massie won the $30,000 Lemelson-MIT Student Prize for inventors[8] and the $10,000 David and Lindsay Morgenthaler Grand Prize in the sixth annual MIT $10K Entrepreneurial Business Plan Competition.[15] In 1996 his company was reincorporated as SensAble Technologies, Inc., after partner Bill Aulet joined.[12] It raised $32 million of venture capital, had 24 patents, and 70 other employees.[16]

In 1996, Massie completed a master's of science degree (SM) with his thesis "Initial haptic explorations with the phantom: virtual touch through point interaction".[17]

Lewis County Judge Executive
In 2010, Massie ran for Judge Executive of Lewis County.[13][18] He won the primary election, defeating the incumbent by a large margin,[13] and then beat the Democratic nominee by nearly 40 points.[19] Massie also campaigned for then-U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul, speaking to various Tea Party groups on his behalf.[13]

Massie resigned as Lewis County Judge-Executive effective July 1, 2012.[20]...

________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is the family Christmas card from a couple years back - stirred up a liberal shitstorm
Massie don't care, he's got fuck you money and a free spirit

quote:

Originally posted by Ironbutt:
...and getting nothing done for another two years.

"Nothing done"?

There will be committees to investigate various corrupt commies such as Hunter Biden and his father. To investigate the FBI, CIA in its role in the 2020 election. To investigate the tech industry and its role in the 2020 election.

Will anything be accomplished with these? Legislatively, no, but these will bring evidence and testimony to light. And the Democrats are shitting bricks.

What the House will hopefully accomplish is to put a big brick wall in front of commie legislation. We don't have the Senate, so of course no meaningful bills or laws will be passed and signed. But at least Pelosi, AOC and their ilk will be neutered a bit.

I think one of the other things was no primary/election retaliation on the 20 (or others) that voted against him. Apparently McCarthy was part of the group that withheld election support for those he was mad at, resulting in Republican loses for those seats.

At least that was one of the things brought up (along with the others) in the video I posted about 10 pages ago.

Here is a new video on what happened:

quote:

How stupid is this?

Mike Rogers lunges at Matt Gaetz during House speaker voting, other members forced to intervene

Yeah, they need to hold you back, tough guy.

Grow the fuck up

Link

That got me thinking, what is the history of violence in Congress there have been in the past some pretty grewsome beatings even one duel that ended the life of a congressman.... maybe all that security is to protect them from each other.

Violence in Congress Before the Civil War: From Canings and Stabbings to Murder

19th century congressman went to work carrying pistols and bowie knives—and sometimes used them on colleagues.
BECKY LITTLEJUL 24, 2019

The Senate had just adjourned on May 22, 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks entered its chamber carrying a cane. The pro-slavery southerner walked over to Senator Charles Sumner, whacked him in the head with the cane and then proceeded to beat the anti-slavery northerner unconscious. Afterward, Brooks walked out of the chamber without anyone stopping him.

The caning of Charles Sumner is probably the most famous violent attack in Congress, but it is far from the only one. In the three decades leading up to the Civil War, there were more than 70 violent incidents between congressmen, writes Yale history professor Joanne B. Freeman in The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War. It was a time of heightened tensions, especially over slavery—itself a violent institution that would drive the nation to a bloody war.

Congressmen during this period commonly carried pistols or bowie knives when they stepped onto the congressional floor. In fact, by the late 1850s, some constituents actually sent their congressmen guns. The fights that broke out among congressmen didn’t usually make it into newspapers (which themselves faced mob attacks for abolitionist sentiments); but there were some exceptions, especially in the decade before the Civil War. Brooks’ attack on Sumner, immortalized in a famous political cartoon, was one of those exceptions. Another was the only instance in which a congressman has ever killed another congressman.

That murder happened in 1838, when Congress was fiercely divided between the Whigs and the Democrats. At the time, many members considered an insult against a congressman to be an insult against his entire party. Challenging someone to a duel was therefore not just about a congressman’s own honor, it was also about defending the honor of his party. These were the circumstances under which representatives Jonathan Cilley and William Graves, who didn’t have any personal disagreement with each other, entered a duel that neither wanted.

It all started when Cilley, a Democrat from Maine, said something on the House floor that ticked off a prominent Whig newspaper editor. The editor asked Graves, a Whig from Kentucky, to hand-deliver a letter to Cilley asking if he wanted to take back what he’d said. But Cilley refused to accept the letter from the editor, who had a reputation for physically attacking congressmen, and Graves’ colleagues in the Whig party perceived this refusal as a slight. They advised Graves to challenge Cilley to a duel in order to maintain his political standing within his party. When Graves sent Cilley a letter challenging him to this duel, Cilley’s fellow Democrats told him he had to accept it for political reasons, too.

On February 24, 1838, the two representatives and several other men met for a duel with rifles in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Neither congressman was very good with a rifle, and both missed each other or misfired on the first two rounds. On the third round, Graves shot and killed his colleague, Cilley.

This culture of violence also extended to state legislatures. The year before Graves killed Cilley, a representative in the Arkansas House insulted the Speaker during debate, and the Speaker responded by murdering him with a bowie knife right there on the House floor. “Expelled and tried for murder,” Freeman writes, “he was acquitted for excusable homicide and reelected, only to pull his knife on another legislator during debate, though this time the sound of colleagues cocking pistols stopped him cold.”

Congress responded to Cilley’s murder with an anti-dueling law in 1839, but the violence in Congress continued as its members led the U.S. into the Mexican-American War and fought over whether slavery should exist in new western territories. Brooks’ brutal attack on Sumner in 1856 was prompted by Sumner’s “Crime Against Kansas” speech that decried the South’s “Slave oligarchy” and demanded the U.S. admit Kansas as a free state. Brooks chose to beat Sumner rather than risk breaking the anti-dueling law because, he argued, dueling “would subject me to legal penalties more severe than would be imposed for a simple assault and battery.”

In 1858, partisan tensions over slavery erupted into a “full-fledged sectional combat on the floor,” Freeman writes. This was one year after the U.S. Supreme Court enraged abolitionists by ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford that black people couldn’t be citizens and the federal government couldn’t ban slavery in western territories. The brawl started around 2:00 a.m. during an overnight session when a southern representative grabbed a northern representative by the throat and said he would teach the “black republican puppy” a lesson. As the two white men struggled, their colleagues ran over and a fistfight broke out.

“The end result was a free fight in the open space in front of the Speaker’s platform featuring roughly thirty sweaty, disheveled, mostly middle-aged congressmen in a no-holds-barred brawl, North against South,” Freeman writes.

Acts of violence like this showed how intensely southern congressmen wanted to preserve the economic, political and social power that they and their constituents held through owning slaves. They also presaged the larger fight between North and South that broke out three years later, when southern states seceded and declared war on the Union. After all, civil wars don’t just come out of nowhere.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by HK Ag:
This should have all been worked out behind the scenes, doing this in front of the press lets them know they can bully McCarthy moving forward and who they need to smear first on the R side, Bobert, Roy, Gaetz.

A unified front on the R side would have had tactical advantages that are lost now.

Yes, but the far right has to make the correct noises or fall victim to some other far right candidate in the next primary.

Remember, politics is almost entirely about getting re-elected, and only about something else by accident or coincidence.

The dissenters have to prove up their far right bona fides.

Could you explain the term "far right"? When the constitution was written and signed, it was a "moderate" document some wanted more some wanted less, settled in middle.

Now someone that wants to follow the constitution (ie a moderate) is "far right"? How does that work exactly?

Braden does a good job of explaining the importance of the concessions McCarthy made to the 20 members of the Freedom Caucus. The most significant “concession” was actually just a return to the norm. It was Pelosi, as Speaker, who broke with tradition in order to consolidate power in herself and other powerful Democrats.