Jeffries call for violence
During a Friday press conference House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries made a veiled call for violence in opposition to the policies of President Trump.
“We're gonna keep focused on the need to look out for everyday New Yorkers and everyday Americans who are under assault by an extreme MAGA Republican agenda," Jeffries declared. “They are trying to cut taxes for billionaire donors and wealthy corporations, then stick New Yorkers and working-class Americans across the country with the bill. That’s not acceptable. We are going to fight it legislatively, we are going to fight it in the courts, we’re gonna fight it in the streets,” said Jeffries.
Hakeem Jeffries Faces Backlash Over ‘Fight In The Streets’ Comment
Once again, as they have so often, democrat leaders have endorsed violence in their crusade against what they perceive as wrong. In 2020 about 2 dozen people were killed in the 2020 riots in which few were ever held accountable. Where was our FBI then. Federal buildings were surrounded and a police station burned. Elected democrat officials did nothing.
It is time to call out haters like Jeffries.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
Let us ask every House democrat how they stand on it.
Who does he think he is? Churchill! Is he also going to try to say it is a their finest hour.
[deleted][✘]
DEI has as much to do with 'diversity' as the Inflation Reduction Act had to do with reducing inflation. Phony outrage over politically motivated institutionalized racism.
Don't look now but Trump's administration is about to be 100% DEI.
Right.
Only in leftist land.
That is hardly a "veiled threat". That is a call to action to the Democrat's Brown Shirts in BLM and Antifa.
It’s funny how our friends on the left call much less, incitement and hate speech if voiced by Trump or a conservative.
Well, more sad really than funny.
So, if ANTIFA or BLM come out and cause violence and mayhem once again in American streets, will leftists here blame Jeffries for his rhetoric?
Hypothetical as we know the answer....
Sounds like a call for the Dems to use nuclear weapons.
So this is scary indeed!!!
Summer of Love not scary enough for you?
Or are you going to scream Jan 6th repeatedly as your defense?
Sounds like a call for insurrection. Time for an impeachment.
Jeffries better be careful about what he calls for
it's the patriotic duty of every american to defend the constitution (what's left of it) from domestic enemies. I'm back at the pistol range twice a week now, because of trump's attacks on the constitution. I know what's coming and I know who will pay ...
What attacks? Please be specific. What freedoms and rights have you lost?
Biden shredded he Constitution and Trump is starting to undo the damage.
Absolutely amazing example of blind partisanship. Trump continues to try to violate the CotUS and your post somehow does not recognize it yet imagines Biden violated the CotUS in some way.
Did Trump try to steal the 2020 election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement?
Did Trump try to eliminate jus soli?
Did Trump try to fire Inspector Generals?
Did Trump use his power to target individuals (vindictively)?
Just horrible to see how blind partisanship can so thoroughly ruin objectivity.
Blind partisanship, projection, deflection, and denial.
Especially deflection since you clearly cannot defend the indefensible.
Back to the article.
Do you think Jefferies saying we're gonna fight in the streets was appropriate?
No, politicians should be more careful with their choice of words.
Why is it that you jump on things like this on Ds yet defend Trump's record-breaking spew of incendiary language?
Lmao.
The irony
My guess is, by gun range, it really means video games in someone's basement
Either way, vewy,vewy, scawy
You have to be kidding
I will tell you when context matters: When people are not going out of their way to make life miserable for others. You MIGHT try to tell me, but liberals make your life miserable. . . and the Churches MIGHT try to tell me that Progressives are persecuting them. . . but it seems that only Trump is canceling rights and firing folks from their 'regular' jobs and Churches are always looking into women's vaginas and highly interested in where 'gays' stick their penises. Liberals could care less if conservatives even have sexual relations or even got outdoors once in a while. So yes, it is NOT the same.
Hell, there is even a Youtube video of a stupid uninformed African Pastor showing his congregation 'gay porn' where butts were being licked (according to him) - without realizing that ('bless his heart') some of the people in his congregation do similarly in their marriages. Or, that not every homosexual does the same thing. He was too 'busy' trying to stereotype, mock, instigate, and turn his congregation against an entire class of people, because surely they would think oh how 'nasty.'
I assure you homosexuals don't go around mocking straight sex practices, because sex is a private 'affair.'
Which and who's rights have been canceled. Be specific and provide proof.
Were you also upset when Clinton fired the entire White House travel staff?
As to the usual whataboutism presented as deflection and 'cover'. . . this is 'today' and what occurred 'back in the day' has little to nothing to do with what is happening here and now!
You ignored the first question. (Not surprised)
No deflection just another example of the left wings hypocrisy.
I gave up a website for perusing. Check again. No need to attempt grandstanding. No one here needs impressing.
I had a gay friend once, actually he was my barber (AKA "hairdresser") who had a great sense of humor. We used to joke around when he was guvung haircuts-- he often mocked the way straight people had sex.
Actually I've personally known a lot of gay people who mock straight sex. Many of them think having straight sex is stupid--but not angrily-- they like to laugh at us.
Speak for yourself.
I need impressing!
Why?
Because I often find these political fights boring...so maybe attempts at impressing people might be more iinteresting than attacking other people.
(Of course I've been on socal media a long time..perhaps too long)
Yes, some people's blind partisanship and absolute TDS is amazing, isn't it?
Didn't Democrats weaponize the FBI, CIA, DOJ, and IRS against their political opponents? The entire FISA warrants based off the Steele Dossier. The entire Russian Collusion Hoax. Ignoring Brandon having classified documents from both his time as a Senator and VP; while pursuing Trump with a raid on Mar-A-Lago. Garland and Brandon both knew he illegally had possession of classified documents long before the raid on Mar-a-Lago; yet Brandon was allowed to have a team (not one of which was allowed to view classified documents search both his dwellings and offices for them). They still missed some; as the FBI was finally forced by public opinion to actually conduct a detailed search- and turned up several more.
Didn't Democrats conduct two faux impeachments of Trump violating all House rules in the process?
Didn't Democrat secretary of states try to keep Trump (and RFK Jr) off state ballots? That is until they thought RFK Jr could take away some votes from Trump in swing states; and then they fought to keep him on the ballot.
Didn't Democrats in the House and Senate try to federalize all election laws?
Haven't Democrats after every presidential election they have lost try to do away with the Electoral College?
Didn't Democrats engage in lawfare. Proving their (and especially Garland's) hypocrisy by allowing NY to tie a federal election law; to state laws whose statute of limitations had already run out. Turning what would have been a misdemeanor offense into a felony? Seem to remember Brandon, Mayorkas, and Garland repeatedly going after border states for trying to enforce their borders and US immigration laws. Guess states can enforce federal laws when Democrats say so.
Didn't Democrats repeatedly violate House rules and federal laws by tampering with witnesses, editing/altering evidence, and withholding evidence during their made for prime time viewing by TDS driven mighty mental midgets Jan 6th "investigation committee"? A committee that didn't have a single Republican appointment on it (the two former TDS Republican appointments by Pelosi don't count).
Didn't Brandon repeatedly violate Supreme Court rulings by reauthorizing his student loan debt forgiveness program; and rent moratorium?
Didn't Brandon threaten to use the US military twice against his political opponents?
Didn't Brandon announce plans to change how often Supreme Court nominees were made (once every two years); how the Supreme Court functions; and put ethics rules in place for justices? Seems that separation of powers only matters when Republicans are in charge.
Didn't the Brandon secret service head remove security detail, and failed to provide adequate resources to Trump, after they knew Iran had agents in the US? Resulting in two assassination attempts against Trump where the assassins got far to close to Trump.
I don't blame Trump for taking the actions he is now. I give him credit for learning from his mistakes during his first term. First lesson (and most important one) no unelected Establishment assholes in positions of power in any department who will spend all of their time trying to thwart whatever Trump is trying to legally accomplish.
Only the blind highly partisan left fail to see that.
Very good points made, however, with that one sentence above, the leftists will deem you a hard core, racist, nazi garbage and state that all you do is defend a "scoundrel", a word no one has used since the 50s black and white westerns.
My dog falls over and plays dead when I shoot her. It’s highlarious.
Impressed?
You ignored my questions, so I am ignoring your rant.
Since you delved into it: Mock straight sex how (and to what effect)? Sex is sex. Some 'do' it this way; others do it that way; even don't do it at all. What is the point of getting into the drawers of what people like in their private intimacy—publicly and making a 'federal case' about it?
[✘]
And exactly who is losing rights in your link?
I don't have time to waste; read it and do with it what you will.
You know you aren't going to get a single answer to those questions.
So you don't know who is losing their rights.
So NOBODY is losing any rights. But then again, if you read your link you would know that.
I am not going to waste time arguing with unreasonable people. My time will be better spent with other people, matters, and interests.
Read it and do with it what you will. Easy, eh? /s Oh, you might NEED the last word. . . so have at it.
I did read it. NOBODY are losing any rights.
You know, I had every intention of walking away from this discussion at 5.1.30 then something happened. I listened to the music of Elton John just now. . .instrumentally. .. and it struck me that I was able to verbalize the words to "Rocket Man" and "Your Song (I hope you don't mind that I put down in words. . . .) and "Bennie and the Jets. Then I think of 'Queen' (songs go without naming them). How rich they have made our lives because they shared their merit to our nation and to the world.
Then I think about the transpersons doing the same by being courageous and dutiful to serve our nation under past presidents and DOD heads without hindrances and strictures being put up as barriers against them. (Those leaders made it work. . . even so putting transmembers on 'desk jobs' or limited duties until they could return to full active duties.) But now we turn our attention to the Haters whom see no use for their talents and skills (much like the Elton Johns' and the Freddy Mercurys' of this world and so many others who hid their true selves from the Hateful people who can't stop hating others). Who deny them their place in servitude, to have dignity, to earn respect, by casting them as worthless and unfit mental 'cases' not fit to serve a nation and by extension unworthy of life itself.
Shame on the Shameless for being so small and scared of other people rights to exist, prosper, and live amongst them.
I was at the bank just now. . . and there is a middle-aged lady that works there with dwarfism (and a limp) whom I have seen over the years. Anyway, the bank is 'full' this morning! She comes out from behind the secure bankers' barrier/counter and the people around her are mildly staring at her as she makes her way to another station on the floor.
For my part, I was immediately reminded of last week's snark and snort by Trump in calling DEI and dwarfism out as inferior in the case of air traffic controllers when the plane was hit by a military helicopter in D.C.
How odd it must feel to this banker (if she heard the president's narrative about 'her') to have all eyes focused on her in a negative way. . . .
But, of course, MAGA does not give a damn about the quality of her work it appears, just that she is to be labeled "deficient' just because . And probably should exist on welfare or just fade out in some. . . unfortunate/fortunate. . . unseen/unheard manner.
Shame on any and all Shameless for being small and scared of other people rights to exist, prosper, and live amongst them.
You had no intention of backing up your claim / answering my question. And so far, you still haven't
And that sentence alone shows you did not read the link you sent. If you had read it you would have seen:
Those regulations are what backs up the entire statement.
So you are being offended FOR somebody?
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
There, above, is the paragraph in its entirety written by the Trump Administration. The EO's tone is unmistakably biased, uses buzzwords, and ignores:
Change to policy allows transgender Soldiers to serve openly
By Devon Suits, Army News Service June 24, 20 21
WASHINGTON -- Transgender personnel and individuals with gender dysphoria who can meet the Army's standards for military service can now serve openly in their self-identified gender, according to a new policy approved this month by the Army secretary.
Army directive 2021-22 changes the service’s retention, separation, in-service transition, and medical care standards for transgender personnel and refines entry criteria for individuals with gender dysphoria, following Department of Defense guidance, said Maj. Gen. Douglas F. Stitt, military personnel management director.
"People are the strength of our Army," Stitt said Tuesday. "Our ability to assess and retain qualified personnel provides a more diverse and stronger Army, enhancing readiness.”
A Soldier's gender identity will no longer be a basis for involuntary separation or military discharge, denied reenlistment or continuation of service, or subjected to adverse action or mistreatment, the policy states.
The updated policy will apply to all active-duty, National Guard and Reserve Soldiers, U.S. Military Academy cadets, and contracted Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets. Military medical providers will provide medically necessary care for transgender Soldiers following guidelines by the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs and the Army surgeon general, Stitt said.
"Every Soldier is different," Stitt said. "When a military medical provider gives diagnosis of gender dysphoria, that Soldier will need to sit down with their chain of command and medical provider to determine what is medically necessary for an effective transition."
Commanders should approach a Soldier's gender transition in the same way they approach any Soldier receiving any other necessary medical treatment, the policy reads. Leaders must also do their part to minimize the impact on mission readiness, all while balancing the Army's needs with the desires of the transitioning individua l.
Once a Soldier is stable in their self-identified gender, they can then request to change their gender marker in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, or DEERS. Once the change is complete, all policies and standards for that given gender will then apply, the policy reads.
Individuals will then be expected to meet all uniform, grooming, body composition, physical readiness, and drug-testing standards. Similarly, a Soldier's identified gender in DEERS will permit them to access gender-specific facilities, such as bathrooms and showers.
Recruitment
Transgender personnel and individuals with gender dysphoria must meet all applicable medical accession standards to gain entry into the Army, the policy reads.
Before the updated Army guidelines, individuals with gender dysphoria were presumptively disqualified unless stable for 36 months and willing and able to serve in their biological sex, Stitt said. Under the new guidance, this duration to meet standards is now 18 months of stability and the person can serve in their self-identified gender.
"This gives the Army a bigger applicant pool to consider," Stitt said.
Applicants must present documents to validate their self-identified gender, such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport, or a certified copy of a court order reflecting one's self identified gender, the policy states.
If an individual cannot meet a medical criterion, they can request a waiver for evaluation under DOD and Army policies. The standard for approval will be determined individually and must be in the Army's best interests after a thorough review of the individual's potential.
And so on and so forth the article goes on to explain past policy under other presidential administrations. . . But, here comes "the DADDY ISSUES" MAGAs who can not see how any transgender - General to E1 is useful to serve their country like every other (straight) servicemember. "Daddy" wants them on the 'outs' - unservicable to the this nation and casted aside despite their having dignified, honorable, and regulated service-until "Daddy" MAGAs entered the picture in 2025.
It is a pretext to cover hatred and division. I'm calling it what it is. The prior policy worked. Then, divisive so-called, "real men" arrived to eff it up with their fear about who might want 'what' from them (and as we have seen nobody is touching anything they have or 'want' touched).
And the transgender soldier, air personnel, marine, and sailor. . .should see the administration in court as to their constitutional right to serve (as they were doing) prior to the Trump Administration. . . honorably.
What you are missing is the EO outlies the regulations (Longstanding Department of Defense (DoD) policy (DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6130.03))and how they apply to the new policy. I don't see that in the NEWS report you posted.
Did you miss the date on that?
Yep, it is my opinion. And MAGAs should evidence some understanding of what it means to be a dwarf (and have to live in this world around people who would see them go hungry and physically 'broke,' too)!
Sounds like something you need to take up with them. Good luck with it.
Nope, I highlighted the date on it in red! It was the prior administration's armed services policy. Which is being superseded by the hateful, divisive, demeaning policy of a viciously angry, jealous, wannabe man president who can't see beyond his myopic nose that he is putting good people out of the services which is inefficient use of their service related and integrated training. . . just to appease other hateful, jealous, angry, and fearful men and women who apparently are "stop the world I want to get off types." And since they can't get off the world. . . they seek to turn it backwards to its dreadful, hate-ridden, fearful, and strident past.
Yet, MAGAs, surrogates, shillers, and supporters are here doing Trump Administration intercession. . . almost 'dutifully.' I hope all this is okay with the seeder as it is getting 'long-winded.'
It is just a voting block that is apparently small enough to not worry about one way or the other, according to Trump and his minions.
Yes, just small enough to 'eff' with and abuse while pretending to be tough men and women. Why give a damn about anybody who you just 'take' what you want from them unjustly?
Name calling, labeling ….. a sure sign of a lost debate …..
Those are EACH individual and functioning names for statuses held in legitimate political speak and activities. No individual has been harmed by the suggestion. Demoralizers is a suitable additional term for the list too.
Nah …. all are simply mean spirited name calling and labeling.
Nothing more.
What I don't understand is how a representative from the state with the highest tax burden in the country on its citizens can possibly castigate someone else over taxes.
Don't feel bad.
I've noticed that a lot of people on social media really don't have a good understanding about those sorts of topics.
Where exactly is the call for violence?
I think the call comes from applying the same standards applied to Trump at his Jan 6th speech, for example, when he used the same sort of rhetoric, saying they had to "fight like hell". I think the intent is to allude that Jeffries is using a dog whistle tactic for encouraging people to riot. Whether Jeffries intends such only he knows.
It's the same people who claim Trump should be in jail for murder/inciting insurrection for telling a crowd to "protest peacefully" who now can't imagine how telling people to "fight in the streets" is a call for violence. It's the same double standard that's been playing out for decades. "Palin tried to murder Gabby Giffords by putting a bullseye on her district" who turned around and said "how dare anyone accuse Joe Biden of inciting an assassination when he said it was time to Trump in a bullseye" days before he was shot.
It's all so transparent.
Christians are not allowed the 'luxury' of exaggeration and deception and nor has Minority Leader Jeffries uttered anything unusual or unheard of before in common parlance:
we’re gonna fight it in the streets,” said Jeffries. As 'everybody' knows this means: protests.
Here is a song about it :
"Takin' It To The Streets"
I was raised here in this living hell
You don't know my kind in your world
Fairly soon the time will tell
You, telling me the things you're gonna do for me
I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
Take this message to my brother
You will find him everywhere
Wherever people live together
Tied in poverty's despair
You, telling me the things you're gonna do for me
I ain't blind and I don't like what I think I see
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
Takin' it to the streets
I knew a Christian once...who on occasion actually exaggerated!
Except that Jefferies only said, "...we’re gonna fight [the bill] in the streets," once in a 25 minute press conference, versus over two hours of violent rhetoric with one mention of, "...peacefully and patriotically," after months of lying that he had won the election and calling on his people to keep him in office because when elections are "stolen" the rules somehow change, making the allusion that he would look kindly on people who took physical action. Poof, fast forward, he has let the violent criminals who were fighting for him go free. There are no lines to read between here.
What do the words "we're gonna fight in the streets" mean to you?
7.1.2.
A song most people have never heard of.
Right.
I am sure that is exactly what Jefferies meant./S
Just like Schumer was talking about a literal whirlwind when he claimed conservative Supreme Court Justices "Will reap the whirlwind" after the Roe V Wade overturn was leaked.
Just like Brandon wasn't threatening to use the US military twice against his political opponents.
Leftists have a great sense of humor.
Unfortunately it leads to billions in damages, hundreds of lives lost, and countless assaults and violations of laws.
To many leftist, as long as it happens to conservatives, then all is A OK.
It's the Doobie Brothers and the song was big (enough). Here is a golden opportunity to get introduced to it.
I don't have to wonder why 'some' didn't hear it (if its to be believed).
Where is that in the quote from Jeffries? I don't see that statement anywhere.
What I do see is "we’re gonna fight it in the streets". Notice what you left out that makes ALL the difference in the world which makes me believe leaving it out was intentionally dishonest. That's right, the "it" was left out. Now what might the "it" be? Well in English that would be the subject of his sentence and as anyone with more than half a brain and a modicum of English grammar knows, what Jeffries was saying is that they would fight "it" which he defines earlier as "the bill" for the "cut taxes for billionaire donors and wealthy corporations".
So would anyone with more than half a brain believe that Jeffries was calling for violence when the subject of his ire was a BILL! Not a guy named Bill, but just an invoice for the American people to pay so that the wealthiest among us can pay less. But I guess that makes sense since clearly only those with less than half a brain are making the claim that this was a call to violence. I feel sad for such ignoramuses.
Searching for the call for violence,
Still searching
Still searching
Gave up, the call for violence must be in another article.
Amazing how they can see it where it doesn't exist, but when pointed out where it was actually present and said and stated by 45, it was all jive
What do the words we're gonna fight in the streets mean to you?
Taken in context with the other parts of his comment the word fight can mean the following:
Fight has a metaphorical meaning, “to contend, perseveringly against opposition and temptation.” In Ephesians 6:12, Paul tells us the battle is not waged in the physical sense. It is instead engaged in the spiritual realm, unseen by us but nonetheless real and, therefore, felt. Trump being a supporter of Evangelicals should understand this. Well maybe.
Another meaning is to fight against a command/order/law by any means which include, passive resistance, with words, strikes, non compliance none of which has physical confrontation as it’s usage.
Thanks you for asking.
Hilarious as you (collective you) far leftists believe "peacefully and patriotically" is a call to violence, but when a democratic leader says "fight in the streets", we are supposed to look at "context".
Context my ass.
I was explaining to SDTM different meaning of ‘’fight’’ then you jumped in with your usual assumptions. I’ll add this, if your assumption is what you posted then you indeed have the context blowing out your ass.
I know what you were explaining.
You were also defending Jeffries for his call to violence due to "context".
I don't remember you ever defending a conservative over "context".
Why?
Perhaps you forget or were absent from NT when it happened. Since I’m not your keeper I have no idea why you can’t remember.
As always, Cheers.
Ah, sometimes context matters and sometimes it doesn't. I wonder if there is a trend as to when it counts and when it doesn't.
You’ll have to answer that question yourself, RDTC. I simply gave you an explanation as to the word and it’s various meanings.
That sounds like a question on a Third grade exam! (One of those so called "Thought Questions" (obvously not one of those multiple choice short answer questions!!!)
Lets stop with all this gay stuff please. (Outsiders may start to think that NT is controlled by DEI extremists!)
Then you (collective you) leftists should stop having coronaries when someone from the right says something like it.
That sounds like a question on a Third grade exam!
One that you can't answer
Sadly you failed the exam before you even started by claiming "What do the words we're gonna fight in the streets mean to you?".
The answer is "Who the fuck cares what the words "we're gonna fight in the streets" means because that's NOT what Jeffries said. Clearly you're so blind and eager to find fault you COMPLETELY misread that sentence and then continue to misrepresent it.
The quote is:
"“They are trying to cut taxes for billionaire donors and wealthy corporations, then stick New Yorkers and working-class Americans across the country with the bill. That’s not acceptable. We are going to fight it legislatively, we are going to fight it in the courts, we’re gonna fight it in the streets,”
What is the "it"? He says it right there for any 3rd grader to see large as life, "the bill" for the tax cuts for Trumps billionaire doners.
So yes, we are going to fight that bill as well we should, but no violence will be required and clearly none was requested by Jeffries.
lol, if someone like Trump had said that most of you left leaners would be losing your shit over it.
Big time …..
are you attempting to DENY Trump hasn't said as much and even worse ...?
My comment is very clear and concise but I’d happy to help you comprehend it.
What “specifically ” are you having trouble understanding?
the cult
Let me guess...
You still believe "peacefully and patriotically" is a call to riot.
Fucking hilarious.....in a sad way.
shun family members because of who they voted for
refuse to invite family to holiday diners because of who they voted for
[✘] Color your hair pink or green or purple
etc...
THAT is a cult, and it ain't one on the right
Yes I agree that the Trump triggered cult appears to be beyond repair but what don’t you understand about my comment #9 above.
I’m here to help …..
Oxymoron?
(Must be caused by all the Fentanyl that's coming across the Canadian border . . .
).
If so. let's hope Trump puts a really YUGE tariff on all those imports of Fentanyl gushing in from Canada)
I like the "shave your heads; abstain from sex forever; divorce your husband or leave your boy friend; get your tubes tide so you can never have kids; and stock up on abortion pills" crowd just because Trump won the election.
Really hope all those that made those promises follow through. Can't have that type of stupid reproducing.
Look on the bright side. The more leftist women refuse to have sex with their partners, the less future leftists will be in this world.
It will be a much better place.
Yep, nobody wants to be with a toxic personality like that.
A new irreconcilable difference for divorce:
Toxic inevitability……
It's not any different than Schumer Tells Kavanaugh "You Have Released The Whirlwind And You Will Pay The Price"
Or any of the other many instances of Democrats inciting "societal unrest".....
Personally I don't take any phrase a politician says as a call to violence. My concern is the 1% of whackadoodles (on both sides of the aisle) that do. For that reason I believe ALL politicians should be careful with the words they use. What I do find amusing is how some folks will twist things to try to rationalize why it is OK when their side does it and why the other side is promoting violence. Some good examples in this comment section.
As relevant today as it was 1967, back to the days of Vietnam, protests, street wars, Wounded Knee taking of the BIA, civil rights demonstrations, shit it’s going to be like reliving my past ventures.
FACE to FACE
As relevant today as it was 1967, back to the days of Vietnam, protests, street wars, Wounded Knee taking of the BIA, civil rights demonstrations, shit it’s going to be like reliving my past ventures.
Ah, memories . . .
WOODSTOCK '69 THE FISH CHEER
pack your boys off to Vietnam
c'mon pops, don't hesitate
send ‘em off before it's too late
be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box
When I hear Hakeem Jeffries, it reminds me of the 'hawk tuah' girl
We are going to fight it legislatively, we are going to fight it in the courts, we’re gonna fight it in the streets,” said Jeffries.
he is basically just re affirming the 4 boxes that US citizens can use in government .
Soap box he is using with the media .
ballot box is the legislative angle .
jury box is the courts
bullet or ammo box is taking it to the streets .
Way i was taught is each box is to be used in order when escalated .
Not true. Dr. King and Mahatma Ghandi used non-violent protest (an appeal of the masses) to effectively cause change in government policy. Do not side-line the obvious meaning of "taking it to the streets" - public protest is even LICENCED in state as marches. People stage them all the time, even in Washington, D.C. Be fair to the man's words!
The article's title makes leaps and bounds through use of a provocative question. The article writer can do that, but It is morally wrong. The minority leader in the House would be a fool to talk in a way that would leave him vulnerable to official rebuke by the House. So let's end the propagandizing and pretense of lack of proper understanding of meaning behind common parlance in political-speak.
depends on ones point of view and understandings i guess, your welcome to yours , what your not welcome to is to tell me what mine is .
but you already know that , but keep trying to influence as you please .
You're welcome. It is what we 'do' here. Share in hopes of something constructively positive coming from our time together. It's questionable if this is "quality" entertainment, some would agree.
Nonviolent protest works! "Taking it to the streets" protests happen all the time and will continue to do so. Hell, we even have strikes that are on "the streets" of this august and just country!
So let's not be ambiguous about meaning of words that have been explained (ad-nauseam) in terms of practical usage. What is needed is consensus on things that can be agreed on "handedly."
Frankly , i dont see that happening anytime soon .
The truth is always agreeable. And let's just call it what it is: "Desperation" for republicans to mangle phrases which signify protest in the streets (a legal outcome) as equivalent to let's just say other violent rhetoric.
That said it is clear to me that Leader Jeffries is ne'er going to be given fair treatment with his use of the English language and common phrases, and we all can assume why. He might as well be using 'Ebonics' because it will be taken that way as though he spoke it.
Too bad i havent been a republican for 20 years or better , conservative on some issues yes .
Too bad there are just enough "knuckle heads" in both parties to take his comment as an invitation for violence if they dont get what they want .
evidence is the summer of 2020 , and jan of 2021 . personally i dont think we will see either of those situations condoned ever again .
1 rule i tend to follow is never trust the knuckleheads on either side .
Then for you it should be easy to give Jeffries the benefit of the doubt! Let's try it. After all, even a leader in the house has earned free-speech rights too!
This is about non-violent protest in the streets. Knuckle-heads act on their own irresponsible conduct; violence is a different and distinct type of civil protest. It is not the only protest model - as we all are familiar with peaceful protests (on the streets of America).
I dont think so .
another rule i tend to follow is ALL politicians lie to get what they want .
so fuck that with a prickly pear cactus . sideways
His words , spoken freely , now lets sit back and see what happens .
( starts the state farm commercial tune ) , like a good neighbor , stay over there ......
my doorbell greeting .
Well, now we see what this really is. Have a nice day, "neighbor."
couldnt influence me could your ? hell your not even close enough to be considered a neighbor by any measure .
to some age groups , a loss of influence is also a loss of power , something they dont want to give up if they ever had it .
personally i think the democratic party is really looking at how they lost so much influence across the board with so many groups , so quickly . i think the actual blame lies with themselves, no way in hell they will admit that though . .
Some in the older decades of their lives may never see that influence ever again . someone else inadvertently pointed that out to me, so it didnt come from me , but someone on site that is heavily invested in the dem party.
Meh. I guess that got me 'told.' /s