Rep. Virginia Foxx Dishonored Matthew Shepard's Death and said it was a hoax
The lies that are told by right wing extremists know NO bounds. What Rep. Virginia Foxx said on the floor yesterday in attacking the hate-crimes bill was inexcusable. I will try to take some action against her.
From Media Matters Action Network:
Rep. Virginia Foxx Called Matthew Shepard Hate Crime "A Hoax"
Summary: On April 29, 2009, in a speech on the House floor, Rep. Virginia Foxx claimed that Matthew Shepard's death was merely the result of a robbery gone bad. While his killers Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson did rob him, they also admitted that they were well aware of his sexual orientation and pretended they were gay to lure him away from the bar he was in at the time. The most striking feature of the case, of course, is that during the course of a normal, simple robbery, the victim is not generally beaten, tied to a post, and left for dead.
Matthew Shepard's Death Was A Hate Crime, Not Simply A Robbery
Rep. Foxx: "The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's, it's really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."[House Floor Speech, 4/29/09] All the evidence clearly indicates that this was a vicious hate crime, not a robbery gone bad...read on
A hoax? Belittling the brutal murder of a 21-year-old college student? And Republicans wonder why their angry, hateful, pathetic party is now only 20% of the US population.
Dave N: I've written about the Shepard case a great deal, including in my book Death on the Fourth of July. Probably the chief source of misinformation about his murder was a 2004 ABC News report, which I debunked at the time:
[T]he 20/20 report substantially omits evidence that was produced at the time establishing McKinney's bias motivation. And indeed, McKinney not only did not deny the existence of this bias, he positively embraced it at trial by attempting a "gay panic" defense.
Incidentally, Fritzen was not the lead investigator in the case. That honor went to a fellow named Rob DeBree. And DeBree has significantly repudiated the "crystal meth" theory.
Here's what he told Beth Loffreda, author of Losing Matt Shepard: Life and Politics in the Aftermath of an Anti-Gay Murder, regarding the attempt by McKinney's defense team to paint him as being under the influence of crystal meth:
Rob DeBree too was unimpressed by the argument -- he told me quite forcefully that the murder didn't look like any meth crime he knew.
In his confession to DeBree, McKinney had denied using meth the day of the murder, and while McKinney had been arrested too late for the police to confirm this through blood testing, DeBree felt certain that for once he had told the truth. Obviously it's unsurprising that the lead investigator would disagree with the defense, but DeBree had some compelling reasons on his side. "There's no way" it was a meth crime, DeBree argued, still passionate about the issue when I met him nearly six months after the trial had ended. No evidence of recent drug use was "found in the search of their residences. There was no evidence in the truck. From everything we were able to investigate, the last time they would have done meth would have been up to two to three weeks previous to that night. What the defense attempted to do was a bluff." ...
There are other serious problems with the report. It omits the fact that McKinney has now changed his story at least three times, and probably more, raising serious doubts about his credibility anyway. It also omits the fact that other detectives in the case testified at trial that the victim was selected for violence, and was beaten especially severely, because he was gay. Their testimony was based on their actual conversations with McKinney and Henderson.
And the piece's later attempts to defend McKinney by tainting Shepard's reputation (claiming he also was a crystal-meth user) should be beneath even the lowliest cops-and-courts reporter, let alone a national news organization. Even if true, whatever Shepard's habits, he did not deserve to die for them.
However, the shoddiness of ABC's reportage has not prevented the spread of the CW that this was somehow a definitive report. Indeed, Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Breitbart have been known to regurgitate that particular hairball.
It is clear that the Republican't party has lost it's mind. This woman should be, MUST be censured and if possible impeached. These people are completely moronic and will say anything. They make this crap up and are allowed to spout this crap on the floor of the US House of Representatives. The Republican'ts are party of mentally retarded fools.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" .. George Orwell
So repugs are second-guessing judges now?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Seems like a lot of effort went in to taking some kid's wallet. First they robbed him - then they pistol whipped, tortured and tied him to a fence post to die. If it was just a robbery wouldn't they have stopped at robbing him?
In the defense the attackers used a "gay panic" defense.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
How manly.
...uses the "gay panic" defense every night.
Zing!
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
You win the zinger o the day award L&L!
Congrats!
not to mention the case's chief investigator.
Newrulz2008 I hope you spend some time with the developmentally disabled in your life.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I call them tools.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
LOLOLOL, ricky, it appears that your comprehension skills are lacking. No where did I say "developmentally disabled"... I called them MENTALLY RETARDED. Republican't brains are broken, they can't think, they can't reason... your comments do a better job of illustrating that point than mine do.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" .. George Orwell
But you still used the term "mentally retarded" as a slur. The term is still used to describe people who are developmentally disabled, so your use of the first term is insulting.
Strange how so many supposedly enlightened people on this site insist on using "mentally retarded" as a slur.
Would using the term "Indian giver" have no racial connotation now that the term "Native American" is used in its place by so many?
Just think a little bit, okay Newrulz?
Thank you, ricky!
These people will continue to lie and say whatever they think they can say, until they are censured and it is placed on their records. And then they will have to work to get it expunged from the record. CENSURE this bitch.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln
@virginiafoxx on Twitter and give her a piece - I did and it felt great. I also e-mailed her using a town name and zip code in her district. I used to live in North Carolina and this woman is a disgrace. My e-mail:
Representative Foxx,
I am a former North Carolinian and you are a disgrace to the state I once called home, as well as to my country. Calling Matthew Shepard's gruesome death at the hands of homophobic sociopaths a "hoax" - that it was not a hate crime but a murder committed during a "robbery" - is ludicrous, idiotic, ignorant, and just plain WRONG. Matthew was killed because he was gay, lured by men who claimed to be gay, and tortured before his death because he was a homosexual. You should resign from the House of Representatives; you don't deserve to claim to represent anyone in the country with your hate-filled speech. As far as I'm concerned, you are guilty of a hate crime on the floor of the House of Representatives.
She's from NC?
Of course...all the really hateful assholes seem to come from my home state...WTF?
John Edwards? Kay Hagan? Beverly Purdue?
It was a clean sweep for the Dems in NC in 2008. They voted in a Democratic president, senator and governor. No other southern state can boast a 3-0 sweep in 2008 for the Dems. NC is turning the corner but of course there will be Christofascist nutters there and this witch certainly is one of them. NC is not the same state that would narrowly re-elect Jesse Helms of yesteryear.
facts and stuff into this!
I know NC is progressive by southern standards...but it seems when NC goes the other way...we get people like Helms and Foxx...
Just that I think Georgia, SC, Miss, Alabama and Texas have more of them.
you win.
NC ain't all THAT bad...
North Carolina not only brings us this BITCH but the horrible Rep. Patrick McHenry (the only gay congressman from NC). I used to think I'd like to live in the south but NO MORE. I wouldn't spend a dime in any of these cracker states.
Ms. F**x, should resign her office. What a low life creature she is. I saw her last week trying to fluster a first term Democrat by asking her questions that had nothing to do with what the poor lady was trying to say. She is a tool of Rep. Cantor. This is not a issue of free speech since she lied on the floor of the House while Matthew's Mother was in the gallery.
These sub-humans should not be allowed out of their mental wards let alone to stand before America and show how absolutely stupid they are. We should not forget this "lady" and send money to anybody that runs against her. She is too stupid to even be a republiKKKon!! What a disgrace to Congress and America!!!!
send her an e-mail - she should resign
Rep. Foxx should be censured and impeached? For what? Having an ignorant and hateful opinion? Expressing her opinion? This is a free speech issue. Just because you loathe her opinion doesn't mean she should be censured for speaking her mind.
Hardly. And yes, having an ignorant and hateful opinion is definitely reason to be censured and impeached! These are REPRESENTATIVES of the people and should know better!
Hate speech is NOT free speech!
Fool.
She did not directly incite violence against gays.
In a contest between protecting the right to free speech and proscribing hate speech, any ambiguity gets resolved in favor of protecting free speech.
Fool. (To reduce my response to your level).
That's using the Clear and Present Danger principle not the Bad Tendency Test.
And one would think our representatives should comport themselves better than those they represent.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
had been rejected as too broad.
The last thing we needed was the Bush administration having yet another tool to stifle dissent.
to speak her opinion in any seedy bar or Klan gathering she wants. But if it's based on lies and hatred she should be censured for speaking it in the halls of the US Congress.
Well Bob, it is to all of us that are not CRACKERS.
have you?
I assume you've also checked out the legal protections in place to ensure that politicians can say almost anything on the floor of the House without fear of legal repercussions.
OK. You're an idiot. She is tacitly condoning violent crime by trivializing it and distorting the facts. I find that rather dangerous for a lawmaker to do.
far left loon >.<
Here't the point, cause you missed it.
American citizens can legally say things that tacitly condone violence. It's done all the time. Our representatives are no better than the rest of us.
Your response, other than an ad hominem attack, is to do what, exactly? Ban speech that you decide tacitly condone's violence? How about if we just ban speech that I think tacitly condone's violence? Or can we just let Justice Thomas make the decision?
I didn't miss a thing.
While you're parsing away with idiotic babble, your lawmakers are destroying your country. It has to stop. Draw that line in the sand, and tell your lawmakers-- ENOUGH.
You, as a citizen, are freer to say what you think, but this is within the House. There's no room for this BS. These people decide your life.
far left loon >.<
You're obviously not interested in debate, just in grade school insults.
You have yet to make a single point that actually deals with (1) what the law actually is, (2) how you would draw your "line in the sand", (3) what that line even is or (4) how your personal sense of right and wrong should be used as a guideline to change the law without starting down the slippery slope to fascism.
You should consider growing up and doing some thinking before making yourself look even more foolish.
Bye now.
That wasn't an ad hominem attack.
Although it's rendered as attacking the person, the best examples are: Why do you hate America, you're part of the blame America first crowd, we have to support our troops (implying the other doesn't), saying someone is against family, god, myopic gophers to essentially derail a debate.
One can also do ad hominems by implication, double entendres, sarcasm and irony. The most famous example would be Marc Anthony's funeral speech, refering to Brutus and his conspirators a number of times as "honorable men." Otherwise word for word he does sound like he's praising them.
Essentially, it's trying to derail a formal debate by forcing the opponent spend more time defending themselves than remain on his points, or try to ignore them without lending them credence by silence on the attack.
One can actually make an ad hominem attack by accusing the other of doing so.
And a blog site is not a proper venue for a debate.
For someone who says he's for free-speech and against censorship, it's an odd accusation to make.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Oh and that would be the "slippery slope" of authoritarianism which falls under both the far right wing (Fascism), and the far left wing (Communism).
And although there is such a thing of unintended consequences, slippery slope arguments are slippery themselves, because what doesn't have possible unintended consequences?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
In what way is "you're an idiot" not an ad hominem attack?
"A blog site is not a proper venue for debate." True. It doesn't mean we should aim comments at the lowest common denominator either.
Because it's a line of argument, not a single phrase.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I was going to be nice an apologize, but then I saw this...
You called that guy a fool, but object to being called an idiot.
It's all free speech: celebrate it.
far left loon >.<
Yep, especially by the 'False News Network.'
mentioned having a "tar baby" in the WH?
Speaking your mind is one thing. Saying that the young man's death was a hoax is 100% complete idiocy. Her mind is clearly damaged.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" .. George Orwell
To paraphrase from her right to swing her fist ends where my nose begins.
There's a difference between an opinion and a lie, she can have an opinion.
Her right to tell a lie, ends where my ear begins.
because you have a right not to listen. Now if you were tied in a chair and forced to listen that would be a infringement on your rights.
Grow up.
Right, we should never listen to lawmakers, we should just trust them to do the right thing. That's working just fine.
far left loon >.<
I believe that people should listen to the lawmakers, but more importantly they should read the bills and make a decision based on that, not what the lawmakers(or anyone else) are saying. But if you choose to listen you can't decide what is free speech based on how you feel. You can disagree or complain about what they say which is your right, same as it is theirs to say it.
Then I suggest Foxx, or someone like her, stand up and give a lengthy speech denying the Holocaust, and we'll see how far that goes.
far left loon >.<
considering she is not denying that Shepard was killed, but perhaps questioning the scums that did it motive.
It is entirely the same. It is her right to free speech. Would you curtail that?
far left loon >.<
I wouldn't, she would probably be laughed off the floor at the very least if she did though. And have no future ever in politics and quite possibly in some of the private sector. But she is free to say what she likes.
Can you at least see my point? That's all I am asking.
far left loon >.<
can see your point, I may not agree with it but I do see it. Can you see my point?
OK. I can see your point too.
The question is, why doesn't anyone give a "Holocaust speech"? It's because it would be universally decried for weeks and weeks, and she be drummed out of power in a millisecond (bu her own party). However, as gays have been made highly unpopular, through exactly the kind of speech she employs, and there is widespread public dislike, she knows she can get a pass on it.
She wouldn't get away with it for a widely-publicized hate crime against an African American, or a Jew, but it's still open season on gays.
Don't even think of saying it was not a hate crime, cause I'll reload, both barrels. We all know it was.
far left loon >.<
The sad part is they should have gotten up and walked out, like they did for Ahmedinejad. The world is full of serious problems, and these Conrgresscritters aren't helping anyone, except themselves.
Don't you tire of these pigs at the trough, with all their BS? Until Americans demand "no more," you'll get more of the same. Crap, spin and lies, where solutions to problems are needed.
far left loon >.<
tired of all the bs, including throwing new laws on top of existing laws, outrageous pork spending, and trying to regulate every part of life. And you are right about needing to stand up. But when one side does it the other screams, see the recent tea parties. Just about all I heard from dems was that it was because Repubs were sore losers or racist. And actual quote from one of the forums I visit "You lost so shut the fuck up"
Dick Cneney shouldn't have given his 50 + 1 is a clear majority spiel (implying STFU). It's just human nature.
far left loon >.<
My students never tie me to a chair and force me to listen to them. I tell them to be quiet, or leave the classroom. I don't censor them, I just remove them from their audience.
Do you think that is wrong of me? Am I infringing on their rights? What would you do?
far left loon >.<
do you ask them to be quiet or leave because they are being disruptive or because you do not like what they are saying? If they are being disruptive in a classroom that is one thing, if you are silencing them because you disagree with them, then yes I feel you are wrong.
I'm just a mean teacher. But the 'kids' love me.
You decide.
far left loon >.<
Being cesured is a warning that you are entering into a grey zone, and unless you have more information to back up your assertions, they should not be enetered into public record.
As a teacher, my students are free to write whatever they like. I'm also free to give them an "F". That is censure.
cen·sure [sénshər]
n
1. disapproval: severe criticism
2. official condemnation: official expression of disapproval or condemnation, for example, of a legislator by the legislature
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
far left loon >.<
silencing students. If you give them a F because their work is not up to par that is great, if you fail them because you disagree with their stance on something that is another thing
I'm an ESL teacher, and never have any problems with my kids. My point is, do you feel teachers could silence a student, for say, disrupting the class and inciting the others kids to chatter away and not work.
Should I stand back and let them run things with their free speech? Discipline of any kind would curtail their rights.
far left loon >.<
I even 'force' them to put down their pens, so they'll listen. For all I know, they're writing free speeches to give later on. Still, in my meanness, I do it anyway.
Teachers curtail all sorts of rights. Should I stop?
far left loon >.<
in relation to what you teach. If you assign a essay and the work is technically correct, but you disagree with the subject ie lets say their are vehemently pro-gun or anti-homosexual. Do you grade them on their work or their subject matter?
And requiring silence or for them to put down their pens is not curtailing their rights. Not allowing them to speak their mind or work on speeches on their own time is. Which is not quite the same. And when speaking on the floor that is their time.
I would not do that. They are free to disagree with my opinions. I'd encourage that. However, if the essay were on this subject, and they made the statement. "The Matthew Sheppard case was a hoax," I'd certainly be expecting requisite supporting facts and citations.
I studied Humanities, with a history major. History can be interpretted in many ways, but academia requires more than just your own opinion. All she offered was her opinion, and that should not pass for debate in Congress.
far left loon >.<
said the Sheppard case was a hoax, She was talking about linking the murder to the hate crime legislation. Sort of like Sarah Brady linking her husbands shooting to a assault weapon ban, which I could say is a hoax, not the shooting but linking it to assault weapons. Or linking Hinkley with background checks which I'm pretty sure wouldn't of turned up anything on him, he sought therapy for depression but it was not court ordered so it wouldn't of shown up on the back ground check.
ETA And I would say a majority of laws, except perhaps robbery, rape, murder, assault etc. are based on opinions. Prostitution, drug laws, virtually all non violent crimes or property based crimes. It's the law makers opinion that they are bad or not.
She said his murder being a hate crime was a hoax. It was a robbery, according to her.
OK, so my friend got gay-bashed to a pulp one night. His attackers left him alone in the park, a bloodied heap in the snow that January night. While they were leaving, they took the ring and wallet from his prone body.
He knows exactly what happened: he saw their faces. So do I. Yet, it is reported in officialdom as a robbery.
I can tell you lots more...
So save it.
far left loon >.<
reported as a robbery, which it was, or assault and battery although in my state I'm pretty sure a robbery which results in injury carries a higher sentence than a straight assault. Which could be why the police reported it as such.
And heres one for you, I'll have to see if I can find the link, a family was leaving a restaurant and there was a group of hispanics in the way the husband (according to witnesses) asked them politely to move, twice, both times all they received was a smile and a nod of the head because they couldn't speak english, as they were walking around the wife muttered something along the lines of "F*cking beaners(or other racial slur can't remember exactly which it was)should learn the language" a local off duty leo heard her and she was arrested and tried for hate speech. I believe she was convicted but she may have stuck a plea bargain.
ETA in all seriousness if its allowed where your friend lives, he should check into the pink pistols, their motto is "armed gays don't get bashed"
http://www.pinkpistols.org/
It's all very interesting. But lets no muddy the topic at hand with too much sophistry.
If you've ever been out in the streets at 2 a.m., you should have a good picture of what really goes down.
There is all kinds of bigotry and hate in the world. Foxx should not be adding fuel to the fire. Your representatives have a duty to do better than this.
far left loon >.<
I know what the streets are like at 2 a.m., I used to deliver pizzas in Gary and Hammond IN and enjoyed nights out in downtown Chicago along with Gary and Hammond. And this as a little white boy :) So I also know about some of the bigotry and hate. And from listening to what she said I don't think she was adding fuel to the fire(I only listened to the link that was provided I don't know if that was her full speech or not, if not and you have a link to it I'd appreciate it, so I can form a more informed opinion)
He reported it as gay-bashing to homophobic cops, who tried to blame him for passing through the park.
far left loon >.<
asked them politely to move, twice = pinnacles of humanity
both times all they received was a smile and a nod of the head because they couldn't speak english = understandable and non-threatening
as they were walking around the wife muttered something along the lines of "F*cking beaners = resorting to racial slurs, where none were needed, simply because they were disgruntled and didn't get their way. Like somehow it's OK, cuz she's white and 'merkan.
I'd say that bigoted woman needs a good 'bitch-slapping': knock some sense into her head.
You might get it after you've experienced your first hate crime yourself. I've had plenty of my own.
far left loon >.<
above and in another thread living in Gary IN as a white boy I think I've experienced my share of hate crime and bigotry/racism.
And I agree racial slurs were not needed. But do you think she should of been charged with a hate crime? And why should she have been bitch-slapped? Because you don't agree with her expressing herself? Shouldn't that also apply to homophobes and flaming homosexuals? Why should one group be allowed to express itself but not the other?
I going overboard with the bitch-slapped thing. Sometimes it helps to get an idea across. I would never bitch-slap anyone (but I admit I like the sound of the term).
The point of the hate crimes bill, is not to outlaw thought, it's a deterrent to committing acts motivated by hate. See (heated) thread from a few days ago. Kind of like there is more serious punishment for killling a cop, than for killing you or me. If the crime was clearly motivated by hate, the penalty could be greater.
That protects your white-ass too. It protects my pansy ass. It is for everyone.
far left loon >.<
I prefer to protect my own white ass, along with any other innocents around me(including your pansy ass). But that's just me. And I would really and I mean really love it, if more law abiding citizens felt the same.
But can you explain how it actually protects anyone? No law ever passed has ever protected anyone. Okay that is a bit of a exaggeration but not much of one. All laws do is punish the people who break them, they do nothing to protect. In the Shepard case there were laws on the books regarding kidnapping, assault, theft, and murder did it protect him in the least? Would adding another charge have done any better? And in the US if you expect the police to protect you, your sadly mistaken. No offense intended to any LEO reading this the vast majority do their best but there is no way possible to protect everyone. In fact virtually every court ruling has found that the police do not have a duty to protect any person just the public as a whole and can not be found liable for failure to do so.
I do protect myself, but not using a gun.
So what about this gay panic defense?
far left loon >.<
is in my opinion bullshit, there are very few justified reasons for taking a human life. To prevent death or injury to a innocent is the main one. But myself I would feel justified in a limited number of other reasons. Someone rapes my wife or molests my daughter or son, they will die, long slow and painfully. It will make anything that has happened at gitmo or abu grabi seem like a walk in the park during spring. Would I be right in doing so? I personally don't care, I would feel justified in doing so and willing to face the punishment for it.
Obviously, it seems I could not stop you, but I think down the road, you would have scarred yourself equally.
far left loon >.<
you got it exactly right - for speaking her homophobic mind on the floor of our House of Representatives - and for LYING - the crap she was spewing about Matthew Shepard's death being caused by a robbery and that it wasn't because of his homosexuality is a LIE - blatant - did you even read the post above - David Niewart wrote about this extensively - Foxx is a lying homophobe and does not deserve to represent this nation in any fashion. Yes, there are many like her and they don't deserve to be in our government either. She should RESIGN.
she said homophobic? And expressing your opinion is not lying. Yes I read the post and the links from it. What I gathered was that it started out as a robbery and escalated into a homicide. Was the escalation fueled by homophobic tendencies? Yes I'll give you that. But was it a hate crime? According to Niewart's other post. "Their purpose today, just as it was in the lynching era, is to terrorize and politically oppress the target community." Which I do not feel was the two scums purpose.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/12/matthew-...
And I do agree with her that Shepard's death was caused by the robbery, I don't think they intentionally lured him from the bar for the purpose of killing him, they lured him from it to rob him and it escalated into a homicide.
See I gathered is they targeted him to harass him because he was gay, then robbed him later.
The perps (I like that term too) later pled the gay panic defense-- temporary insanity:
So, apparently, if you get freaked out by a gay, it's Ok to kiil him??
far left loon >.<
was they targeted him for robbery because he was gay and would be a easy mark, stereotypical pansy less likely to resist and also that they felt(and were right)that it would be easy to convince him to leave with them. From the one guys original statement "surprise were not gay and your going to get jacked" before they had a chance to consult a attorney and get their defense lined up. And I have (jokingly) used a proactive "Gay panic" defense, I have said to gays I have no problem with what you do just don't hit on me and I won't hit you. And I have been hit on by gays (There goes the stereotype that gays have taste) and laughed it off.
I like perps but in cases like this I prefer the more accurate term Scum.
Until everyone is equal (as it says on paper), some people need to be deterred. It's the only way some people will understand.
That anyonne could even claim "gay panic" tells it all.
If a gang of heterosexual girls attacked me, and threw themelves on me, I might be temporarily insane. I've had tons of straight girls mercilessly hit on me, but I've restrained myself.
far left loon >.<
All men are created equal, they have the same chance to excel to the best of their ability. Doesn't mean some Joe without the genes to do it is going to become mr america, also doesn't mean that mr america is going to be able to beat deep blue in a chess game.
And my take on the gay panic defense is above. It's Bullshit.
We agree. Hurray.
So back to the thread. Foxx should just zip it, instead of spreading disingenious sound bites. That has been my point throughout. She's only making things worse. If she had a legitimate claim against the bill, I'd listen, but to toss out a trashy soundbite is irresponsible.
You know, you can pass a bill through Congress without anyone reading it. Half the reps are off double-dealing with lobbyists. They might pop in for a second and hear her BS and decide on that alone. In the meantime, she's just slurring folks' good names.
It's time for a little honour in the House, or just pack the damn thing up and get rid of it.
far left loon >.<
agree, probably on more things than both of us imagine. But here is where we disagree, that she should just zip it, she has a right to voice her opinion, just like any other representative. And that soundbite was 30 seconds of a 5 minute speech, where she goes into the reasons she is against the bill. Which does come up with some at least halfway legitimate reasons to be against it. Including the most compelling reason is the 10th amendment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRRfdDRDAfI
Her full speech starts right about 2 minutes in.
And also for providing federal funds for state purposes, which having went through child support for a couple of years I can understand how some of that works.
Fed regulations provide funds for the states to go after deadbeat dads. Which is a good thing, but how it actually works is that all child support has to go through the courts and the local jurisdictions get a kickback from the feds on the amount collected. As a non deadbeat dad I had to send in a money order, personal check was no good to the courts and pay a fee(to the courts on top of the fee for the MO) to do so, and my sons mother had to wait about a week or so to be able to collect it. And if she needed extra money and wanted a advance on it I wasn't able to legally do it.
And yes a bill can pass without being read, look at the stimulus bill, that was what 900+ pages that was voted on 18 hours after the final draft? I'd love it if every congressman or woman had to take a test on every bill they voted on, if they pass they can vote, if not they can't.
.
far left loon >.<
.
I give up (for now). It's a lovely day here.
far left loon >.<
its supposed to rain here tomorrow. Its the middle of the night where I am.
Sleep well. Cya next time.
far left loon >.<
Totally agree with that statement. She every every right to be offensive. She has every right to make statements that are not backed up by the facts of the case.
But, at the same time, a censure is ALSO an expression of free speech.
Other Congressmen have every right to censure her, in effect telling her that a large group of them find her speech offensive.
"Censure" and "censor" are NOT the same thing.
What a loathsome, mean-spirited bitch talking out her butt-trumpet.
... it was mentioned that Matthew's mom was in the public gallery of the House at the time.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
I had been Matthew's mom and I heard this woman say this, I would have thrown my shoe at her (and probably would have ended up in jail).
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
She needs a good bitch-slapping.
far left loon >.<
The only good thing is we have videos of all this wackiness now. Hard for them to deny it later although there is a certain person from Mn that will deny saying something even after the host shows her the clip. Can anyone say Bachman?
Absolutely right. This woman should be told by the sane people in government to shut up! How dare thes thugs turn on victims of violent crime, saying that basically they don't deserve to be protected. Foxx is a perfect demonstration of the kind of bigots that rear the children who are the perpetrators of homophobic violence. Disgusting!
Candideinnc
AP is reporting that Foxx is now saying she made a "poor choice of words" regarding Shepard's death. I guess when you're an ill-informed blowhard, apologies aren't necessary. Never mind that, according to Keith Obermann, Matthew's mother was in the chamber when Foxx shot off her stupid mouth.
I think the "poor choice of words" excuse is a little tired. We've all slipped up and said things we didn't mean before. But this is an official, public forum - with the victim's mother in the room...
The correct choice of words now should be, "I'm sorry and I remove myself from any further discussions on this topic due to my obvious bias against decency."
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Since words are primarily tools for thinking, I could almost accept that excuse, but since it was not expressly intended to be in that spirit, it's just yet another ugly BLATT sound issuing from her that we can point at while we hold our noses.
Words are an imperfect vehicle for expressing our thoughts. They are not tools of thinking: the thinking part is already over as we speak. Just clearing that up.
Her words betray her thoughts.
far left loon >.<
with your assertion about words not being tools for thinking. I think they serve well. People with larger vocabulary have more tools for thinking at their disposal. This is especially noticeable in the trades.
Speaking is generally easy, automatic behavior that serves in most day-to-day situations, requiring no thought, like driving, singing, walking.
... it's that people misuse it and take advantage of the grace most people are willing to grant as a result.
In my book, when you say, "I messed up" ('poor choice of words'), then you must also demonstrate that you are taking steps to prevent/correct the same error in the future, and make amends.
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that Foxx is using the line as a 'okay, now just move along' kind of thing.
Hmm, and since, if I'm not mistaken, she was READING her comments, not speaking off the cuff, doesn't that sort of negate the whole "I mispoke" defense?
She's guilty of a poor choice of attitude, thought and deportment. She's a raving homophobe with half a brain and a loose tongue. These types are never sorry for what they did, just for being outed for what they did. Stupid horses ass!
... it's not 'just a robbery.'
It's MURDER.
It shouldn't have to be pointed out that the perpetrators' story of meth addiction and fits of rage came in a jailhouse interview after their conviction. The facts in evidence were deemed sufficient to sentence both men to consecutive life terms in prison.
Beyond that, the tale of a fit of rage seems inconsistent with driving the victim out to a remote field, beating him senseless, and tying him to a fence. Rage speaks to an impulse; what the perpetrators did speaks to deliberate intent and planning.
Shepards mother was there when that rancid whore said that shit too!
God! The GOP has no sense of decency at all...
Virginia Foxx needs to be impeached! And if I was Matthew Shepards folks...I'd sue the living shit out of her in civil court for whatever could legally be brought against her.
Hello ... free speech issue. You cannot sue a Member of Congress for what he/she/it says in the House. You should not try to censure or impeach someone because their opinions are offensive. Think of what the last administration would have done with that power once the precedent was established.
This is NOT a free speech issue. It's an integrity issue. There is no reason that a member of Congress should be able to lie in a speech on the floor of the House - which is also a lie to the entirety of the American people. She completely deserves to be censured.
And, yes, what she said was a LIE - not a 'misstatement'. In this age of information there is no excuse for what she said; she was either too lazy to look up the facts or deliberately presented information which fit her ideology in defiance of the facts. Either way, it was a lie, and she has proven herself to have no integrity or honor. And not censuring her just encourages further bad behavior.
How are you going to prove that what Foxx said was a lie? Maybe she's just ignorant and bigoted. Can you prove that she made her bigoted statement knowing that it was false and intending to deceive? Bring too lazy to check is negligence or recklessness, but not intentional deceit. Also, spinning is not really lying either, so long as there is any possible way that the "facts" can be interpreted in accordance with the spin.
All that's beside the point. Censure has no real legal effect and would just give the GOP something else to lock horns over. The best response to Foxx is to publicize her comments and remind voters about them the next time she's up for re-election. If her financial donor's feel some public push back, that's a good thing too.
Bring too lazy to check is negligence or recklessness [sic] I assume you meant being.
She is a lawmaker, voting on laws that will affect your life. Do you really want someone in that position to be too lazy to check the facts?
Next she might vote to torture American citizens, because she was too lazy to check the facts.
Foxx: "Oh, I thought it was OK, cuz one of my friends told me about a Bybee memo they heard about on Fox news."
As I said earlier, you are an idiot.
far left loon >.<
You could try to engage in rational debate. Instead, you'd rather just be insulting to those you disagree with.
Taking your comment much more seriously than you deserve:
1. No I do not want her as a lawmaker. I'd be only to happy to have her and every other Republican removed from every level of politics;
2. You want to remove every politician who says something ignorant or makes a mistake based on negligence (being "lazy")? Or do you just want to remove those you disagree with or are offended by? The issue is how. You want to use impeachment, rather than the ballot box and to impeach Foxx over something she has a right to say.
Either way, you did not address my point. Do you believe negligence and ignorance = lying? Yes or no?
Do you believe negligence and ignorance = lying?
In some cases yes, as you asked a yes/no question.
In this case, I would call it willfully misleading.
Bush never said, "Saddam Hussein is going to drop a nuclear bomb on America," he just alluded to mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction.
These are not ordinary citizens or pundits, these people have the power to run your country. In Bush's case it took you into two wars. Is that cool with you?
far left loon >.<
"In Bush's case it took you into two wars. Is that cool with you?"
No it's not cool with me, but neither is censorship ... especially of democratically elected representatives.
In a democracy, the people's representatives have to have wide lattitude to raise issues and questions without fear of repercussions. That's one of the basic tenets of democracy and one you are apparently willing to abandon if you are sufficiently offended by the politician in question.
The correct way to deal with Rep. Foxx is to vote her out, not to have her removed because you are offended by her bigotry.
Then I suggest Foxx, or someone like her, stand up and give a lengthy speech denying the Holocaust, and we'll see how far that goes.
Nothing to see here folks, move along?????
far left loon >.<
US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 5 cl. 2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Thanks ybs. I'm all for freedom of speech, within limits. Conundrum? Maybe, but some things just should not be said. I would hope anyone with good sense could see that. I would hope these esteemed persons running your country would lead the way.
"We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart." Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
far left loon >.<
Also, spinning is not really lying either, so long as there is any possible way that the "facts" can be interpreted in accordance with the spin.
It seems you have no problem with deceitful lawmakers. You get what you deserve.
far left loon >.<
You are exactly the kind of blinkered thinker it is most dangerous to let make decisions about what is and is not "lying" or and what is or is not hate speech.
Anyone who disagrees with you is an "idiot". Better not ever attack anyone else (like Savage, Limbaugh, Malkin et al.) for making personal attacks against those they disagree with - or you'll be a hypocrite as well as an ass.
You're not an idiot for disagreeing with me. That is your right, and I'm glad you are using it.
I'm saying you're an idiot, because as you debate who has a right to say what, while your country is going down the tubes, and it's being led down there by people like Foxx. Debate her freedom of speech all you like, and don't complain about the Iraq war, or torture.
Bybee, Yoo, Addington, etc., were just giving opinions. They were too lazy to check facts????
far left loon >.<
That's one hell of a leap of logic. If I take the position that her words, as objectionable as they are, are still protected by the right of free speech, somehow I've given up my right to complain about the Iraq war or torture?
You've got our positions reversed. I'm on the side of personal freedoms, including freedom of speech and freedom from invasion and torture and you're on the side of censorship and totalitarianism.
Not exactly. I am anti-censorship.
What you're failing to grasp is my objection to her intent. Your, "Give it a pass, it's all free speech," perspective is what riled me. Sometimes it's not OK.
It's not OK for Bush to allude to mushroom clouds, It's not OK for DoJ lawyers to use their opinions (free speech) to justify torture. It's not OK for Fox news to say half of what it does say. It's not OK to refer to a heinous crime as a hoax. At some point, Americans have to stand up and say ENOUGH. Defending her right to free speech is admirable, but purely academic.
People with power have a responsibilty to those who do not. People that make laws have a greater responsibility than the rest of us.
She knew exactly what she was saying, and why.
If it where in a courtroom, one could object (to her statement as misleading), and the lawyer would be asked to prove his assertions and its relevance, with facts. You could say that limits free speeech too, but I somehow think you would not, were you the accused.
far left loon >.<
"somehow I've given up my right to complain about the Iraq war or torture?"
Would you agree that misinformation got you into the Iraq war, and to torture?
Do you support the freedom of your government to spread that misinformation?
Or, do you somehow, somewhere deep inside you, feel it was wrong?
There is no black and white here. Blindly supporting freedom of speech, no matter what, is a dangerous place to go.
far left loon >.<
"You are exactly the kind of blinkered thinker it is most dangerous to let make decisions..."
Perhaps. However, while others are parsing legality, I'd look in my heart, know it was wrong, and not say it. That's self-censorship. I think we could use a bit more of that.
PS I didn't mean to call you an idiot. It's just I saw you objected to being called a fool, and it sprang to mind in my rush to post.
I'm certain you are no idiot, sir. Peace bro.
[edit] nor fool :-)
far left loon >.<
that she has the ability to open her mouth without distorting a sentence or thought to meet her sick perception of the world.
You're absolutely right...thanks for the reality check...
She IS still a mean ol' bitch though.
Of course she can (and should) be censured for her speech.
She has the right to say whatever she wishes. As do the other members of Congress.
A censure is speech. It is a statement that someone's behavior was inappropriate or offensive to the people that voted for the censure.
So, Foxx has a right to free speech. And everyone else has a right to tell her they disagree with her.
ya seen em all. She's just bottom of the barrel.
Flinging poo with the monkeys?
Some of them eat it.
For some reason Youtube has several clips of various primates eating excrement (not the bishops).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Pilates? Pralines? Yes, pralines! Yummy.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
That's not one of our better moments. Please forgive us. At least we fling poo and it can be cleaned off. Humans spew poo from their mouth and that's kept around thanks to YouTube.
(Monkeys like YouTube).
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
you know I've mentioned my Grandad's monkey. A Chimp named Whiskey. Wore diapers. Meanest critter I ever met. I have not met Rep. Foxx.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Chimps aren't monkeys.
Chimps are apes and apes are vile nasty creatures that want to take over the world. (They don't like to be touched).
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
I would be a mean critter too. My apologies Whiskey.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Well if you're going to wax all taxonomic on us
Which I'm sure teabaggers are against too.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Pretty soon you'll be neck and neck with the KKK in membership numbers and relevance. You already have the same types of constituents.
I'll need to avoid Harrison, Ark., for a while.
"When are we going to stop trying to tell elected officials what to do. Our job is to spend the taxpayers' money the best way we can." -- Tommy Watkins, Justice of the Peace, Crawford County, Arkansas
that's their goal...
gives the rest of us older women a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD name...
effing cow. Thoughtless. Here's one that'll cut to the bone:
SHE DOES NOT HAVE GOOD MANNERS.
me-oww!
simmer down Ms. Kitty....
all it takes is all of us
if she is raped, beaten and robbed, should that be listed as a robbery?
These people are beyond the pale. The wright wing asshole heads are exploding.
Next will be a new report that says Tricky Dick was a guy that just wanted to watch porn flicks with Deep Throat.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
it should be listed as robbery, rape and assault and battery.
Want to make a difference?
Contact the top contributors for Virginia Foxx:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contri...
'Talk to the hand'
push her buttons no surprise there.
That's why I am anti-theist
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
to the darkest clouds, perhaps. Thanks.
I'm antictheist.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
The only way for her to redeem herself is to vote for the bill. Since that won't happen. F#@& you B!?<& !!! Even an apology would not be enough. If you live in her district, SHAME.
What is there to say? Virginia Foxx comes from the old-school South of racists, bigoted half-wits! Might as well lump her in with Bachman as the class of the clueless!
Another update from the trenches of sheepledom.
Comments are closed on this entry