Thank you Rep. Virginia Foxx

[smileyeagle1021]

For those of you who have been living in a cave and haven't seen it yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLxbQmlOT1I
Ms. Foxx is trying to say the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard wasn't a hate crime. And you know what, I honestly could not be more thrilled. Thank you so very much Ms. Foxx. You have dealt a death blow to the Republican part but saved our nation. You have solidly positioned the Republican party as the party of bigots...as long as come the 2010 election cycle politicians have access to youtube this will be brought up again. Only a bigot who is willing to stand behind those words, that Mathew Shepard was not killed for his sexuality will dare run as republican... it will make it very easy for us to tell who NOT to vote for (hint, it's not the republican candidate).

It is sad though... because I would have supported Huntsman if he ran in 2012... but I can now never again bring myself to vote for a republican... not after seeing that...

and damnit... I should know never to watch the news like that... I don't know how I'm going to eat, I feel physically ill after watching it... I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep. It will be worth it in the long run... but damnit, it hurts today.

[guywithashovel]

It does seem like the Republican party is slowly hanging itself, doesn't it? I hesitate to say this, because I don't have a magical crystal ball that tells me everything that will happen in the future, but my suspicion that the Republican party is on its way to joining the Green Party amongst the minor parties here in the US is gradually getting stronger.

Most of the Republicans who get in the spotlight are extremely bitter, angry, petty, easily frustrated, and paranoid. Just a few examples of this include Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Likewise, many Republicans who don't embrace the spotlight seem to be quite similar to these people. With a nod to a few scattered exceptions, most of the people I saw supporting John McCain in this past election were petulant, peevish, and even brought to mind the archetype of "trailer trash." That's not to say that Obama's supporters didn't have their quirks, but the ones who stood behind the party of the elephant seemed particularly ripe with consternation. None of them appeared to be interested in paving a way for our nation to make progress.

In any sense, I am going to wait and see what happens. Though I do strongly suspect that the assortment of political parties here in America is going to change here in the next ten years or so. I just hope we don't turn into a "one-party system." In lieu of any disagreements, I do believe we need at least two parties so that everyone can "keep each other in check," so to speak.

[Greenday]

Ms. Foxx is trying to say the brutal murder of Mathew Shepard wasn't a hate crime.

I just repeated that line to my mom. Her response, "What is she crazy? She must be nuts to think that."

I'm going to have to agree with her. I mean, I always knew that if there is a bigoted side, it's the Republican party. Not too huge a shocker.

[BlaqueKatt]

You have solidly positioned the Republican party as the party of bigots

wow one person that I've never heard of before now has THAT much power in their party</sarcasm>

but I can now never again bring myself to vote for a republican... not after seeing that...

maybe vote for the person and how they stand on the issues and ignore what party they belong to-did rep Foxx claim to be speaking on behalf of all Republicans or was he just stating his opinion on the matter?

according to this article 49% of republican delegates are in support of same sex marriage.

And remember it was democratic president Bill Clinton that signed the "defense of marriage act" in 1996.

well you do realize the democratic party was founded on bigotry and racism don't you-better not vote for them either.

some history on the democratic party

George Mason university-history news network
"History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party."
"during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens."
"Senate debates revealed that the Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
"On December 15, 1994, federal Judge David V. Kenyon issued a court order to the Clinton Administration in the Case of Fairchild v Robert Reich Secretary of Labor (#CV92-5765 Kn). The order demanded that Secretary Reich and the Clinton Administration force 100 west coast shipping to develop an Affirmative Action plan to stop discrimination against, African Americans, Hispanics, Female and Disabled Workers. Female employees were being sexually harrassed, Hispanic were being denied promotions and training, Disable Workers were being laid off, and African Americans were being force to work in an environment where they had job classification called " Nigger Jobs." Clinton left office six years later and never complied with the court order."
And from the wall street journal-the author of this article also wrote the books-"wrong on race" and "Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the American Legacy:"-both praised by the former chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
that one I will not quote as the quotations from the democratic leaders are horribly offensive. Including ones from our current VP's son(made just 5 years ago in 2004)-so no this is not "dredging up the past" or "they've come beyond that"-they're still as racist as ever.

[Pedersen]

was he just stating his opinion on the matter?

Actually, I don't know if it was just her opinion or an official stance of the Republican party. Not going to try to answer it. Will only say that I hear homosexual bigotry a lot more from Republicans than I do from Democrats, personally.

And remember it was democratic president Bill Clinton that signed the "defense of marriage act" in 1996.

Wow... I already answered this one way back on Sep 18, 2008, and in direct reply to you making the same half-truth statement then. And you're still spouting this claptrap? For shame.

I'll restate it for your (and others) benefit:

The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by rather a few Republicans in the House and Senate. In fact, the voting was so in favor of it (342-67 in House, 85-14 in Senate) that Clinton vetoing was not an option. The two portions of Congress (which were both Republican controlled) had already overcome the 2/3 majority to pass it into law.

Clinton's approval or disapproval was meaningless. It was already law, having overcome any veto power he would have had.

[AdminAssistant]

Clinton's approval or disapproval was meaningless. It was already law, having overcome any veto power he would have had.

Clinton also tried to pass measures to allow LGBT's into the military and received so much pressure from the military that the awful compromise of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was passed.

I realize there are moderate Republicans, but they need to be more vocal. And I sincerely hope that this...bigoted woman loses her next election. Trying to say Matthew Shepard died as a result of a robbery, please. He was beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die. Robbery my ass.

[daleduke17]

The murder of Matthew Shepherd was a crime, plain and simple. Let's drop the bullshit of calling it (and others) a "hate" crime. How about just calling it what it is: A CRIME?

It's a sore spot on me to add all sorts of cutesy language to make a crime against one certain group worse than the same crime against a different group.

[AFPheonix]

In any sense, I am going to wait and see what happens. Though I do strongly suspect that the assortment of political parties here in America is going to change here in the next ten years or so. I just hope we don't turn into a "one-party system." In lieu of any disagreements, I do believe we need at least two parties so that everyone can "keep each other in check," so to speak.

I sincerely doubt we'll only have 1 party rule. Especially with the showing the Libertarians have had since moderate republicans and conservative independents have shifted over.
Either they will become a more powerful force or moderate conservatives will form their own party. They have no voice with the Republicans anymore.

[smileyeagle1021]

maybe vote for the person and how they stand on the issues and ignore what party they belong to-did rep Foxx claim to be speaking on behalf of all Republicans or was he just stating his opinion on the matter?

the difference between me and a republican is that one I will admit my bigotry... when it comes to republican politicians I am a bigot... they could be as saintly as Jesus... I will never trust them. They will deny being a bigot til the day they die. Another difference is that I have grounds for my bigotry. Thanks to republicans my boss could walk in right now, say "i heard you are gay, I don't want no queers working for me, get out" and I would have no legal recourse... in the state of Utah that is not discrimination. In fact, it is justifiable grounds for termination so I wouldn't be eligible for unemployment. My mother is my landlord (I rent out her investment property) so she wouldn't do this, but if she so desired she could at any time say "I don't like the idea of a gay guy living in one of my units... I'm canceling your lease"... she wouldn't even have to return my deposit... being gay in Utah is grounds for termination of a lease, thanks to... you betcha, republicans (and they all voted along party lines on these issues). Think I'm being paranoid? One of my coworkers just went through that, his landlord refused to renew his lease because he is gay. It isn't common, but it does happen.
oh, yes, if I did have a boyfriend I would not be able to visit him in the hospital... once again, due to a vote along party lines. The normal process for when one partner dies unexpectedly is for the estate to pass onto the other partner... short of paying hundreds to have a lawyer draft a living will (and even then the state will make you jump through hoops) that isn't possible in Utah for gay couples... if you haven't guessed who is responsible for that by now, then you never will.
Even talking about things other than orientation... in Utah it is illegal to discriminate based on a person's religion... our republican run government however only seems to enforce those laws if it is a Mormon being discriminated against. It is considered socially acceptable by Utah republicans to discriminate against non-Mormons. I can still remember switching bank branches after a teller who I had gotten quite frequently asked me why I was no longer paying tithing (even if they don't see the checks you write, it's easy to tell when you've done tithing... when a few days after you have a deposit there is a check for 10% of it). Now, I have no way of knowing said tellers political affiliation, but the odds are good enough that I'd bet money on it being republican.
Oh, let's not forget the republican representatives in Utah who say things like "this bill is ugly, just like a black baby" or "gays have no morals and will destroy the country" or "allowing alcohol to be served in restaurants offends many good people and should not be allowed" (btw, the only people I ever heard saying that alcohol being served in restaurants is offensive is mormons, so by him saying it offends good people he's kinda implying that people who aren't mormon aren't good people).
So far in this state I've seen one, count them, one person in the Republican party who has been willing to stand up to the bigotry, Governor Huntsman... who by the way, the Utah Republican party has said they no longer support.
Now we have Ms. Foxx who, whether or not she truly is speaking for the party as a whole, doesn't matter... she thinks she does, I've yet to hear an uprise from the republican party saying, this is not what we believe, so obviously even if she doesn't speak for them they don't disagree strongly enough to correct the record... so yes, forgive me if I find it difficult to believe it is possible to be republican without being bigoted. And no, I won't even waste my time looking at the stances and platforms of a republican candidate because it's so unlikely that they aren't a bigot... I'll spend my time researching the candidates that are most likely to be decent human beings, democrats and libertarians.

[smileyeagle1021]

The murder of Matthew Shepherd was a crime, plain and simple. Let's drop the bullshit of calling it (and others) a "hate" crime. How about just calling it what it is: A CRIME?

It's a sore spot on me to add all sorts of cutesy language to make a crime against one certain group worse than the same crime against a different group.

I agree, a crime is a crime, and all should be punished.
However, this isn't about the same crime against a different group of people. Let's say for argument that Mathew Shepard's murder was a robbery gone wrong. You here about it, doesn't matter if you're straight or gay. It concerns you a little bit, but not too much... because robberies can happen to anyone, what do you do, you be sure to be more aware when walking at night.
Now let's say that the crime is what it was... a crime based solely on the fact that the person was gay and this group thought that was wrong. As a straight person you feel no fear, no concern, you know this type of crime will never happen to you. However, if you are a gay person, you now have to fear for your life because you know that there are people out there who want to kill you for no reason you can prevent, you can't stay calm and be smart and have a chance of making it through it like you would with a robber, no, once you have been chosen to be eliminated for who you are it is lights out for you, and most likely in a very painful way. You walk out your door in the morning wondering, your neighbors have made it known that they think homosexuality is a sin... are they the type to take it one step further? You wonder, will this be the day that I'm targeted?
So really, your argument has the flaw in that it's not the same crime. A robbery gone wrong has one intended victim, a murder that has a personal motive to it (you slept with my woman, you stole from me, you cheated me, etc) has one intended victim. A crime like Mathew Shepard's murder the perpetrators goal isn't to kill his victim, it is to strike fear in an entire community... for them killing Mathew Shepard was not the end, but a means to an end. THAT is the difference.

Oh, and you know what, it works. I can't speak for the entire gay community, but every time I hear about these attacks a single thought runs through my head, "am I next". Remember how you felt after September 11th... you felt vulnerable didn't you, you didn't know where the next target would be... that's what it's like.

[Boozy]

It's a sore spot on me to add all sorts of cutesy language to make a crime against one certain group worse than the same crime against a different group.

Hate crime legislation isn't about the victims, it's about the perpetrator. The law is not claiming that the life of a hate crime victim is more valuable than that of the victim of another crime. Rather, it recognizes that the perpetrators of hate crimes tend to be more dangerous to society than "regular" criminals.

It's sociopathic to kill someone who has never slighted you personally, simply because you don't like the colour of their skin, or their sexual orientation. Someone for whom this is plenty enough motive to take a life is a menace of the highest order. Their pool of potential victims is huge, they're everywhere, and we never know when one will set him off.

[smileyeagle1021]

Boozy, thanks for pointing that out... I hadn't even thought of that aspect... but you're right... someone who commits one of these crimes would have to be a sociopath.

[AdminAssistant]

Exactly, Boozy. It it had 'just' been a robbery, they would've just taken his money. They didn't. They wanted to 'teach him a lesson' and it cost him his life.

[daleduke17]

Hate crime legislation isn't about the victims, it's about the perpetrator. The law is not claiming that the life of a hate crime victim is more valuable than that of the victim of another crime. Rather, it recognizes that the perpetrators of hate crimes tend to be more dangerous to society than "regular" criminals.

It's sociopathic to kill someone who has never slighted you personally, simply because you don't like the colour of their skin, or their sexual orientation. Someone for whom this is plenty enough motive to take a life is a menace of the highest order. Their pool of potential victims is huge, they're everywhere, and we never know when one will set him off.

So, murder is not always just murder then? Sorry, I disagree with that. John Wilkes Booth shot and killed a guy....that was murder. People who killed Matthew Shepherd killed a guy....murder as well. Try the perpetrators the same and give them the same punishment.

I do agree with 1st degree vs 2nd degree murder, however.

[smileyeagle1021]

So, murder is not always just murder then? Sorry, I disagree with that. John Wilkes Booth shot and killed a guy....that was murder. People who killed Matthew Shepherd killed a guy....murder as well.

No, it wasn't murder... it was torture, it was terror, it was brutality. I'm going to assume that you have never been the victim of a violent crime, much less one that was based on bigotry. If you were you would not even think of saying something like that.
In 6th grade after getting of the bus a group of three guys who had all year been calling me 'faggot' and 'sissy' and 'queer' and several other less than complimentary slurs, most of them related to them perceiving me to be gay decided that I hadn't "straightened up" enough. Two of them grabbed me and shoved me up against a wall while the third grabbed a nearby trash can and started to beat me with the trash can. They made it clear that it was because I wasn't straight enough for them. I got extremely lucky in that this whole episode lasted only a matter of minutes before a passing motorist stopped and scared them off.
By your standards those three should be treated as if it was an after school scuttle... and that's how they were treated, they got a day of community service... a just punishment for an after school fight. They moved on with their lives... I was terrified to leave my house for weeks after that... terrified that they'd finish the job. If it had been a mere assault, a mere after school fight... even an attempted robbery, I could wake up the next day, say damnit yesterday sucked, I got my ass kicked in that fight... next time I'll be ready... no, I couldn't do that. I could not change what I was doing to prevent it happening again... because it wasn't anything I did that upset them, it was who I am that upset them. As I feared they twice later did the same thing (well, not the same, once they tried to pummel me with rocks, once they just did it the old fashioned way with punches and kicks).
Every time my pleas for help were ignored. Even though it was obvious that these weren't random acts, that they were targeting me specifically for appearing to be gay, the police could do nothing. They kept getting community service, I kept living in fear. Even to this day the idea of people knowing I'm gay is terrifying. Just because I'm out of the closet and open and honest about it doesn't make me less terrified. Every time someone else finds out I'm gay I have to worry, will this person be the next Jason (the ring leader)... after all, Jason seemed kind of nice at first, not someone I'd be a friend with, a bit of a hard ass, but not a bad guy. Is this going to be the next person who decides that I need to be straightened out and follow me on the bus and beat me when I get off at my stop? I've gotten better, but it will definitely haunt me for the rest of my life.
Hate crimes are real. Murder isn't always the same as murder, assault is not always the same as assault... sometimes it is much more. Sometimes it is about striking fear and terror into the victim. And I'm sure if you had ever experienced that fear, you would be saying the exact same thing I am, arguing for the enactment of hate crime laws.