Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats
Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats
During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as “wild and scenic,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country,” said Foxx.
Foxx then extended her claims of the GOP’s progressive history to the issue of civil rights. “Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the ’60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle,” said Fox. “They love to engage in revisionist history.” When Foxx finally yielded her time on the floor, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) passionately rebuked her:
CARDOZA: Today, what I’m hearing on the floor really takes the cake. The gentlelady from North Carolina, in her statement just now, indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can’t believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman’s state that we passed that civil rights legislation. John Lewis…
FOXX: Would, would the gentleman yield?
CARDOZA: No, I will not yield. John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn’t part of getting that legislation passed.
When she was given a chance to respond, Foxx could only say that Jesse Helms wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1972. Watch it:
Foxx’s claim that Republicans were the real engine behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a common notion among conservatives. But as Cardoza points out, it was President Lyndon Johnson who “choreographed passage of this historic measure in 1964.” In fact, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), voted against the legislation.
To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Revisionist History strikes again!
November 19th, 2009 at 12:38 pmShe is utterly delusional, as usual.
The administrations of JFK and LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights legislation, supported heavily by Democrats except in much of the South.
Those Southern Democrats eventually became 100% repiggie from 1968 throughout the early 80’s.
That old broad is crazy like a Foxx.
Could we refer to her nonsense as FoxxNews?
November 19th, 2009 at 12:40 pmGet her to an assisted living facility…she is showing obvious signs of dementia…and she just looks nutty…
November 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pmYes Virginia, you ARE the Satan Clause.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pmIf Repugs are so keen on supporting Civil Rights, why are they hysterically opposed to supporting Civil Rights such as Universal Health Care, ACORN- a Civil Rights group, anti Hate-crime Laws, and on and on for a thousand and one pages.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pmI rank Ginny up their with Rep. Bachman and Rep. King. They are ALL certifibly insane,
November 19th, 2009 at 12:43 pmWay to go Rep. Cardoza. Give ‘m hell.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pmShe’s a North Carolina resident, and (I’m assuming) lived there during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. I’m also sure she’s well aware that a Southern Democrat (i.e., Dixie-crat) during that period is the equivalent of a Conservative Republican today. (Stars and Bars – yee haw!! )
She’s just too ignorant to state that she knows it.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:44 pmBoth sides need to revisit the early 1960’s. Remember the South?
“Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Vote statistics: Encyclopedia II – Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Vote statistics
Vote totals: The Original House Version: 290-130 The Senate Version: 73-27 The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 By Party: The Original House Version: Democratic Party: 153-96 Republican Party: 138-34 The Senate Version: Democratic Party: 46-22 Republican Party: 27-6 The Senate Version, voted on by the House: Democratic Party: 153-91 “
November 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pmIf Virginia Foxx had been serving in the House in the 1960’s, I’d be willing to believe she would have fought against civil rights legislation with every fiber of her being — as did virtually all white southern representatives regardless of party (yes, they were mostly Democrats, but hardly progressive ones).
Lyndon Johnson was a southerner who was progressive on domestic issues. Virginia Foxx is the exact opposite, and no amount of lipstick will convince me otherwise.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:45 pmThe truth is very inconvenient to the calumny of the right-whners.
Right-whiners don’t seem to remember that history is recorded, and consistently refutes their fabricated assertions.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmI love it. The best she can come up with is that Helms wasn’t in the senate until 1972. She can’t dispute or defend his bigotry or the ugly turn the southern strategy inflicted on the party’s position on issues of equality. Her point, such as it is, gets reduced to “we Republicans have only been hard core racists for four decades, not five!”
November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmIn all fairness … snort … Virginia is too ignorant to to know anything of the 60s. All she knows is what’s on her talking points sheet every day. I don’t if she can identify what she had for lunch.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWillowOrchid @5
Funny isn’t it that during Bush The Turd’s reign, (previously considered the Uber Republican Male), the Bush Admin actively failed to pursue voters rights cases…
November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmIn all fairness … snort … Virginia is too ignorant to to know anything of the 60s. All she knows is what’s on her talking points sheet every day. I don’t if she can identify what she had for lunch.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:52 pmWho would anyone want to defend them in court…a Republican tobbaco lobbyist or a Dem trial lawyer. Civil rights should be more than Rovian fantasies.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pmPresident Barack Obama has tapped a former top aide of his predecessor George W. Bush to a key post on a board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting, just a few weeks after she called his administration’s behavior “unbecoming” with regards to the so-called “White House war with Fox News.”
Dana Perino, the first Republican woman to serve as White House press secretary, was appointed late Wednesday to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).
Why I wont, for one reason, support Oblahblah. Spineless Appeaser.
November 19th, 2009 at 12:57 pmI swear Oblahblah is taking lessons from Reid.
And Foxx [6666] YOU LIE!!
November 19th, 2009 at 12:58 pmmore repuglican revisionist history… next up on their list – “how obama started the wars in iraq and afghanistan” and “obama created TARP”
November 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pmWhen Newt Gingrich gave his first speech as Speaker of the House in 1995, he credited “the liberal wing of the Democratic party” for the passage of Civil Rights legislation. I’m sure TP can pull that quote up.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm(R) Revisionist history – “how obama, secret islmaofascist, started the wars in iraq and afghanistan to bankrupt America”
FYT
November 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pmAll the southern Democrats that opposed civil rights legislation are now Republicans. The Republicans called the exploitation of opposition to civil rights the “southern strategy”.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pmAnd it was the republicans who advocated and passed Medicare, and it was the republicans who advocated and passed Social Security, and it was the republicans who advocated and passed the WPA, the CCC, and the NRA. (National Recovery Act, not the National Rifle Association)
November 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pmShe probably thinks all the credit should go to the Republicans for us landing “a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth”, just because Nixon was president when it finally happened.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:02 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Go Away Oblahblah and take Perino, Reid, Pelosi, Bauchus, Stupak and the blue dogs with you spineless appeaser.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:04 pmWhich came first—-Ignorant republican citizens or ignorant republican officials?
With people like Foxx representing republicans in her state, is it any wonder that North Carolinians are so ignorant of history and facts?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:04 pmOr are the voters so stupid that she seems OK to them.
Who are you kidding, Virginia? You would’ve voted against every Civil Rights bill out there.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pmFVNY says:
They reward some by taking from others!
What is hate crimes legislation “taking from” you?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:05 pmFoxx is off her rocker again! She’s one crazy biddy.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pm.
Why of course it’s not revisionist history when Virginia Foxx engages in it, YES?
.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pmIs Rep. Virginia Foxx the same woman who asked asked about Santa Claus?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:06 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
As I recall the re-pukes voted no on the New Deal,they were against going into WWII,voted down Truman`s single payer health care,voted against social security,medicare,civil right and now our new health care reform but they do love a good huge tax cut for their BASE,IE;the wealthy and keeping 40 plus million Americans from getting decent health care insurance and in general saying NO to everything possible so they can look good in 2010 and 2012 by making the dems look spineless and weak all the while looking good with their tax cuts for the wealthy and their WAR Mongering for the Military industrial complex,it`s called the double Santa Claus rule where they look good when their in charge and when their not.They are only in it to get reelected.O love it when they try to rewrite history and look STUPID,as in ” stupid is as stupid does”.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pmI think she needs a pee test. This woman is either crazy or she is abusing some heavy duty narcotics. My guess is her pee test would come up hot.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pmIf a gay black/hispanic/asian woman assaults and murders you because you’re straight and white, it IS a hate crime. Nothing in any of the hate crimes legislation that prevents it from being treated as such.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:09 pmQ. What do you call a Republican who isn’t lying?
A. Dearly departed.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pmFVNY says:
How?
Oh, you want to be protected from prosecution if you kill a “faggot” in a red state where the local law enforcement authorities won’t care? That’s not actually “equal protection”, but thanks for admitting that you’re a bigot and a would-be murderer.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pmFVNY
You are a liar and you are ignorant. Why in the world would anyone take what you say seriously?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The real tragedy of Virginia Foxx is that she is a former educator (English professor, then university administrator) yet is seemingly unaware of her own ignorance and, in fact, seems to revel in it.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pmWillowOrchid says:
If Repugs are so keen on supporting Civil Rights, why are they hysterically opposed to supporting Civil Rights such as
such as same-sex marriage? Why shouldn’t gay people be able to get married and have the same legal protections that marriage affords opposite-sex married couples? Just thought I’d throw out that example of a ‘Civil Right’ that the GOP opposes.
As far as Foxx saying, “Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country”, well that’s outright funny. Yah, that’s what I think of when I think of Republicans, trying to save the environment. Not exactly.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pmI’d like to grab Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) by the head and use her hair like a brillo pad to clean the white walls on my tires.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pmFVNY says:
“Because none of those are civil rights. As a matter of fact, they are the opposite of equal rights. They reward some by taking from others!”
Can you explain what allowing gays to marry would take away from you?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pmhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/245.html
FVNY. Nothing in there about “White” or “European American”.
Pull your head out of your ass.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pmmary lacewing,
November 19th, 2009 at 1:16 pm“Drill baby, drill!”
FVNY says:
Wrong. If you are attacked BECAUSE you are ‘white’ or ‘European American’ than that is a ‘Hate Crimes’ and you would be protected under this law!
Wow. Equal protection, awesome!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pmCan you explain what allowing gays to marry would take away from you?
________________________________________________
Nothing, gays should be allowed to marry. The state shouldnt be allowed to legislate morality or deny rights to certain citizens.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pmFVNY – don’t you have a whole bunch of income to protect so you can afford all those taxes you claim you’re assessed every year? You know, those taxes that are more than our annual salaries?
That income won’t make itself, dude! Better get back to it and not let TP take up so much of your time!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pmWhen I was still quite young (7-8 years old) and being raised in a “northern Bible Belt” region (West Michigan), it didn’t take long for me to figure out that what conservatives/evangelicals said differed greatly from what they actually practiced. This has not altered in the years since then.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:18 pm#47 – belaccifer lacca says:
——————————————————
“Wow. Equal protection, awesome!”
November 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
FVNY twists the truth, and anyone’s words, to support FVNY’s opinions.
It’s an endemic condition to being a right-whiner.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pmA Patriot Actin,
… Because we all know that it’s not “SPECIAL RIGHTS” when straight people keep them for themselves, YES?
I mean, marriage as pushed in society is a “SPECIAL RIGHT” exclusively set aside for straight couples ONLY!
I want E-Q-U-A-L RIGHTS!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pmHahaha, Foxx is a pox on America.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pmwhich is why African-Americans vote GOP today…
oh wait, they don’t? Mercy me…how can that be?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm“Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats”
Definitely Foxx’s koolaid juice has been spiked. She is changing the history books. Did she forget who was the President at the time when the civil rights bill was passed? Foxx has now joined the rest of the Party of Fruit Loops: No intelligence, no ideas, no plans, and no brains. The GOP party’s current ridiculous statements and arguments on any issues has been become a dog and pony show.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:23 pmFVNY is a liar. He is a young punk living in his mommies basement. His claims are the dreams he has of what he will be someday. He isnt so selfish because he has a lot but because he DREAMS he has a lot. Nothing this lying moron says can be taken seriously
November 19th, 2009 at 1:24 pmBecause none of those are civil rights. As a matter of fact, they are the opposite of equal rights. They reward some by taking from others!
Everyone is protected under hate crimes legislation…even whites…*shock what a concept! You know under the FBI statistics, there are hate crimes listed with white victims as well…
November 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pmFVNY says
November 19th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Wrong. They designate certain groups as protected. “White” or European American is not one of those groups!
_____________________________________________________________
Actual text of hate crimes law:
(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–
and
(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person–
Would you please explain where it says “unless you happen to be a white, straight, male Protestant of European ancestry”?
Whites aren’t any less protected than anyone else. When it says “because of race, color, etc.”, it means just that. If somebody assaults a white person because they’re white, it’s a hate crime.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Wow. FVNY?
Any response?
‘Cause you pretty much got pwned here…
Luckily it was because you were lazy and didn’t read the legislation.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pm‘Cause if you were beat up that badly for being ‘white’ or ‘European American’ you would have a case under the new legislation.
That must be why Strom Thurman Left the Democratic Party to become a Republican. He just wanted to be part of that wonderful pro-civil rights party.
This Fox broad is one big POS.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:29 pmMissmolly
Sorry FVNY is out at the moment and you will most likley have to wait until Rush tells him what to think about that and gives him the appropriate talking point before he can answer
November 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
With a name like Foxx, I suppose she thinks she has to lie.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pmFVNY Probably also believes the Earth is flat and is only 6,000 years old too.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:31 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I still don’t agree with the law. A crime is a crime.
So you don’t agree that the penalty for pre-meditated murder should be more severe than for manslaughter?
I mean, murder is murder, right?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm“Foxx could only say that Jesse Helms wasn’t elected to the Senate until 1972.”
Ms. Foxx needs to reread Mr. Helms’ bio:
On the 1963 civil rights protests, Helms stated, “The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that’s thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men’s rights.” He later wrote, “Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced”.
Although his editorials created controversy, they also made him popular with conservative voters, helping him to win re-election to the Raleigh City Council.[citation needed] He served for four years. He was at Capitol Broadcasting Company until he was elected to the Senate in 1972.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms
November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pmWell, I saw that you actually tried to be civil for a moment on the other thread but your personality won out and now you’re back to just being a dick. Too bad.
If you can prove that a white person is assulted or killed because they were white then it’s a hate crime.
The criteria is simple so that even dullards can understand. You obviously don’t want to because you wish to falsly claim that you are being discriminated against.
What is it about common sense that evades you aaronk?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pmAs usual FVNY you are just spewing the ignorant BS that Rush told you to think about liberals. I have had the same job for more than thirty years. You are stupid, brainwashed, and oh my GOD the most selfish pile of dogshit I have ever seen. Since you are both a LIAR and a MORON I am not sure which of those has put you into denial about your selfishness but it proves once again that your capacity for self delusion is simply astonishing
November 19th, 2009 at 1:34 pm@66, LOL! What if I had a flat head? Damn, you need better come backs. LOL! Flat head. Well, at least it’s original. Because it doesn’t make sense.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pmLet’s just get rid of the whole legal concept of mens rea, okay?
A crime is now a crime, FVNY has SPOKEN!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pmFVNY so you still dont believe in the law you just LIED about and showed you have ZERO understanding of? Big suprise you dont need no stinking FACTS you have an ideology. Rush told you it was bad thats all an ignorant brainwashed moron like you has to know
November 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pmFVNY says:
I still don’t agree with the law.
It’s too bad that you’ve publicly admitted that you don’t even know what the law says, thereby rendering your opinions about it completely irrelevant.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:36 pmbelaccifer
Exactly so. Why in the WORLD are manslaughter, murder and negligent homocide different crimes. I mean someone died right? A crime is a crime its underlying motive should have nothing to do with it. What an ignorant putz this guy is
November 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pmHistory is whatever the f@&% Bea Arthur says it is. So there!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:38 pmFVNY you are a LIAR. You dont think anything. You dont think at ALL you regurgitate. You are far too stupid to think. You always have been you always will be.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:39 pmEugene@73, What do you expect from a ditto head? They have someone do all their thinking for them. Unfortunatly, the person who teaches them is as dumb as they are.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:39 pmSec. 4707. Prohibition of Certain Hate Crime Acts.
(a) In General.-
Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“Sec. 249. Hate Crime Acts
“(a) In General.—
“(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Hello McFly…no race is singled out by name, just race in general…quit eating your Froot Loops
November 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pmlefty@76, How i miss Maude!
November 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Forgot Link at 79:
Here it is:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010/Division E
DIVISION E — MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD, JR. HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT
November 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pmPD
True. Except I am not so sure how dumb Rush is. He is probably just a liar who enjoys programming the terminally stupid and gullible like TTTC and FVNY. I bet of liberals made Rush a better offer he would be a liberal tomorrow. Except his BS wouldnt work on us so liberals would have nothing to gain from making him an offer
November 19th, 2009 at 1:41 pmThis shows why we need federal hate crime laws. If a local judge happens to be a racist dumbass hick like aaronk, he isn’t going to agree with the law against lynching.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pmFoxx is not crazy, senile or stupid. She is trying to rewrite history but that only works for her constituents. She may underestimate the intelligence of the members of Congress, but she is only deluding herself. Most of the members of Congress know the real history about civil rights. Rep. Foxx can play to her voters, but eventually, the lies will catch up.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:42 pmIt matters…one reason why someone investigating the crime wants to know the motive…helps to find the perpetrator…you cannot be that dumb, or can you?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pmFVNY says
November 19th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I still don’t agree with the law. A crime is a crime.
____________________________________________________________
Lemme get this straight — you’ve changed your position from “the law is unfair to whites because they’re not protected” (because you got pwned on that) to “the law is unnecessary because a crime is a crime”?
Can you take a position here and defend it?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:43 pmMaybe it’s just that you subscribe to this writer’s ideology?
Shall we dub you a Foxxian?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pmFVNY says: I still don’t agree with the law. A crime is a crime.
Can I assume, then, that you do not believe there should be a special designation of “terrorism” in the law? Murder is murder, right?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThose are two different things based on intention to kill the person.
I’m saying that the reason why you killed a person doesn’t matter. You still killed them and theyre still dead.
Well the reason why is exactly the point… you see we have a legal concept called ‘mens rea’ that speaks to the persons reasons and intentions for committing the crime and we have decided that sometimes (self-defense) your reason excuses the crime of murder.
Sometimes (pre-meditated murder) your reason and your reasoning indicate that the CRIME of murder is WORSE in the eyes of the law than other killings…
Get it?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:45 pmFVNY says:
I just expect the rest of you to work hard for what you get in life, like I had to. But you’d rather sit back and wait for the government to rob me so they can take care of you, you lazy bastard.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
There it is. The typical teabagger shit about liberals not working, and waiting for the government dole. I doubt this idiot even makes enough to pay taxes, but he’s worried about supporting “lazy people.”
But who’s spending hours upon hours flinging shit on TP?
FVNY
Get a job, f uckwit. If you have a job, stop stealing time from your employer.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pmThe REASON you comitted a crime shouldnt matter. Whether you did it because you were GREEDY or because you are desperate shouldnt matter? Exigent circumstances shouldnt matter? Then the idea of torturing someone because you want to stop a terrorist attack or torture someone for sadistic pleasure it should be treated the same? Do you even TRY to make sense?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pmAnd if terrorism is just another crime, then this “War on Terror” is an illegal use of the military for law enforcement, correct?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pmThe Molalla River is purty. It needs protection.
STFU, Foxx. You dumb cow.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pmPLC
Ya beat me to the punch on that one
November 19th, 2009 at 1:48 pmFVNY says:
I’m saying that the reason why you killed a person doesn’t matter. You still killed them and theyre still dead.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
So alleged murderous Muslim terrorists are just like run of the mill American murderers.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pmEugeneDebs, nice job on the torture as a special crime post as well.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pmFVNY,
November 19th, 2009 at 1:50 pmYou may call me a lazy bastard for various reasons…
… But we all know that like Ms. Foxx, you too are INTELLECTUALLY LAZY!
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
FVNY isnt too bright and we consistantly mop the floor with the guy but today he is getting particularly PUNKED
November 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pmFVNY
Your fourteenth amendment argument is inane and particularly STUPID even for a YOU. Since ANY citizen may commit a hatecrime or be victim of a hatecrime there is no POSSIBLE fourteenth amendment problem. That was just flat stupid beyond rational comprehension. The rest of your bilge is the same old stupid Rush TOLD you to think and has been dealt with so many times my braincells threatened to comitt mass suicide if I even considered dealing with the tripe. All crimes are hate crimes. REALLY? Please tell me that even YOU arent stupid enough to take such patent absurdity seriously.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
FVNY, you are wrong. Let’s look at the cross burnings by the KKK. The only crime involved in the act, according to you, is that a person trespassed and perhaps violated an open-fire law. This assumes that the act’s only victim was the person who lived on that property, which is false. The crime was an act of terrorism, with the victims being any other blacks in the neighborhood who dared to be as uppity as the person living on the property. Thus, there are at least two separate victims and at least two separate crimes.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pmI guess FVNT wouldn’t mind having plain old first degree murder charges brought against the brown guy who tortured, raped, and murdered his 7 year old daughter — for no other reason that he REALLY hates white people, and he admits that’s exactly why he did it. And he’d do it again.
It’s really no different than any other murder, right?
November 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pmaaronk, your argument falls on it’s face when you consider 1st degree murder as opposed to manslaugher.
If you were right, which you never are, everyone should be treated the same in all murder cases.
bottom line, you’re an idiot.
You still owe me a grand liar.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pmNice revisionist history, you ugly old harpy.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pmFVNY
A reasoned if flawed argument. No it ISNT illegal to hate. It IS illegal to act ON that hate and commit a crime. It IS within the purview of the law to say when you commit a crime BASED on that hate it will be more severely treated than when you commit the same crime because of greed, desperation, or PERSONAL animosity. The rationale being that it is more destructive to the fabric OF a society than the same crime comitted for those other reasons.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:59 pmUsing FVNY-logic, we should abolish conspiracy laws as they try a person twice for the same crime and violate the Constitutionally protect right to assembly.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pmFVNY you’ve been pwned…repeatedly…why don’t you slink away…change your handle…start fresh…
November 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pmyes it is when you act on it.
It is deplorable to say the least and you defending it speaks volumes. What the hell kind of wierdo are you?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:03 pmFVNY says:
I vote against based on the fact that it violates the 14th amendment (equal protection) because you can receive a longer sentence if the court determines you harmed a “protected class” and also the 5th amendment which states “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This “hate crimes” statute gives federal prosecutors the authority to try a defendant a second time for an alleged hate crime after prosecution in a state court.
The protected classes under the 14th Amendment and the hate crimes statutes include whites, blacks, oriental, male, female, any religion or no religionm, and straights and gays.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:04 pmIf you are assaulted by anyone because of your race, religion or sexual orientation, the crime is considered a hate crime. Your 14th amendment argument is bogus and this was dealt with on a thread yesterday. You are talking about something that you know nothing about. Do some legal research and you will find my statements are correct.
Using FVNY-logic, we should abolish the law that allows adding a gun specification to a robbery since the person robbed the place only once and didn’t actually shoot anyone and gun possession is legal.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:04 pm.
Dear FVNY,
You still have not gotten back to me on how you can parse the 14th Amendment…
In the 1st subsection it clearly states “CITIZEN” as defined in the Amendment, yet continues on in subsections 2 and 3 to say ANY PERSON instead of “CITIZEN”.
PLEASE PARSE THIS FOR US AS TO HOW THE FOUNDERS GOT THAT WRONG.
If the Founders meant any person, instead of “CITIZEN” then why did they take the time to define “CITIZEN” only to use “CITIZEN” in one subsection but NOT the other two?
If the Founders got “any person” wrong and meant “CITIZEN” then why is it that they were capable of using the term in one subsection but NOT the other two?
There is a reason the Founders worded things the way they did…
… Can you explain their inconsistency, as you would have it be called?
.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:04 pmIf you kill someone because you found them in bed with your wife, should THAT be treated EXACTLY the same as if you murdered them because you wanted to steal their money? Pretending that motives dont matter just doesnt pass the logic test. I have some understanding of what you are saying FVNY. There was a time I opposed hatecrimes legislation because of the idea it was criminalizing thought. Over time I decided I was wrong.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pmFVNY
State law and federal law can be applied to the same crime, its something we have done for years. If a mob guy is convicted of murder in state court, he can be tried in federal court for RICO. Same crime different laws. The hate crime law isn’t any different. One crime, two laws broken.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pm(shrug) Southern white folks white-washing history – typical.
Can’t really blame them, I suppose. The truth of their evil is pretty heinous, and must be psychologically scarring, when acknowledged.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:05 pmFVNY says:
Plus, hate crimes aren’t necessary because all crimes are hateful
Embezzlement is “hateful”? How, exactly?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pmPLC good point on conspiricy as a crime
November 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pmEpic spanking today.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:08 pmagain…..fvny is our old friend aaronk of proven liar fame.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pmFVNY says:
All crimes are hateful. So jaywalking and speeding are hateful crimes? How about not paying your taxes or shoplifting? You need to come up with better arguments.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:09 pmIs this aaronk the same as jennyaidenaaron of global warming denier fame?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pmFoxx speaks volumes for the level of stupidity present in the district she represents. It’s clear that the folks in that district allow her to spew her hate and revisionist blather without much regard to how this makes both them and her look to the rest of the US AND the world.
I’m actually glad Foxx continues to spew her hate. It allows the rest of us to have a clear example of what a rational American ISN’T.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pmStealing food, water or medicine for a sick child in a disaster situation is a hateful crime, according to the idiot FVNY.
Oh yeah, I forgot. White people “find” food. Black people are looters.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pmThe federal hate crime is prosecuted as a civil rights violation. These federal laws exist because of states that have no laws or refuse to enforce the law or give defendants a slap on the wrist. Read the history of the civil rights fight in the 1960’s and you will find southern states did little or nothing to prosecute hate crimes even under their own ordinary crime statutes.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:20 pmFVNY
Do you know what would do your credibility a world of good? Come in here and ADMIT we have made good arguments, that we have ANSWERED your points. Whether or not we have convinced you show that we HAVE given you food for thought
November 19th, 2009 at 2:22 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
That explains a lot! No thinking goin’ on in that camp at all!
But you should rephrase:
November 19th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Oh look.
aardonk(a donk) has once again posted several times, none of which pertain to the topic of the thread.
So, if I may, how DO YOU FEEL about Foxx distorting numbers in favor of Republicans supporting the Civil Rights Act?
Or, are you just refraining from gunning down some Libs?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pmFVNY says:
I meant all crimes that could be classified as a hate crime are hateful (ie causing bodily harm or death)
So burning a cross on somebody’s lawn (does not cause bodily harm or death) isn’t a hate crime? What would you call it, littering?
November 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pmDon’t you just love the Republicans revising history like that. Who would’ve thought that the right wing Republican party gave us Civil Rights in the 1960’s?
Amazing, but unfortunately, getting to be that it is to be expected from these folks.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:40 pmFVNY
What you MEANT was stupid. Obviously stealing from greed is NOT motivated by hate and that is probably the most common of crimes. Then your next point was even STUPIDER. Are you REALLY saying that you oppose what the bill SAYS because of what you IMAGINE MIGHT HAPPEN? Really? C’mon, be honest even YOU have to know that is plain stupid. By that criteria I could oppose ANYTHING. Its like saying I THINK the anti pedophelia bill will be used against fathers who hug their children I dont no MATTER what the bill says.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:42 pmSo burning a cross on somebody’s lawn (does not cause bodily harm or death) isn’t a hate crime? What would you call it, littering
I would use whatever laws are currently on the books to prosecute that person to the fullest. I just don”t want to legislate against certain thoughts. Hate is wrong, I wary of criminalizing hate because it could be abused.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:42 pmFVNY
Again your argument is WEAK. Almost ANY law COULD be abused. If we used that criteria we would still allow bosses to FIRE people for being black because it COULD be abused so that no black person could lose their job no matter WHAT they did. We would still allow anti miscegenation laws because it COULD lead to letting people marry ducks. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy BY DEFINITION.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:46 pmFVNY is afraid of criminalizing hate crimes because it means he will end up spending much more time in prison.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pmPerhaps Fuxx should look at more recent history—who didn’t want to vote in favor of MLK day as a national holiday?
Unless I’m mistaken, a certain presidential candidate (who had an abject failure-Alaskan nutbag on the ticket) that didn’t win in the last election was one of the vote downs…but, I won’t mention names…great way to support the cause…there were others in the same vein as well…
November 19th, 2009 at 2:47 pmDebs, so you don’t think about repercussions anytime you make a decision? If it feels good, then do it? I think that’s a little short sighted.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:49 pmI would use whatever laws are currently on the books to prosecute that person to the fullest. I just don”t want to legislate against certain thoughts.
I think you mean certain expressions of thought, because it is impossible to “legislate against certain thoughts.” No one can tell what another is truly thinking, only what they outwardly express. And if they are openly expressing their hatred, it should be as much a crime as expressing an urge to overthrow the government, or to encourage assasination.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pmFVNY says:
I just feel that these hate crimes will rarely be used when straight, white males are the victims, ….
What you feel is not what the law says. I can assure you if blacks assault a white person because he is white, they will be charged with a civil right violation by the feds. There was the case of the black students who beat up a white student. I don’t recall the state but they were charged with felonies. The feds monitored the criminal prosecutions to insure the students were punished. They were and the feds declined to prosecute any further because the punishments fit the crime.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:53 pmFVNY says:
So burning a cross on somebody’s lawn (does not cause bodily harm or death) isn’t a hate crime? What would you call it, littering
I would use whatever laws are currently on the books to prosecute that person to the fullest. I just don”t want to legislate against certain thoughts. Hate is wrong, I wary of criminalizing hate because it could be abused.
What law would allow prosecution of the cross burning for the terrorizing message the act had on the black community as a whole? There was none – and the bigots got away with a small fine for littering, trespassing, or illegal burning. The hate crime is not criminalizing the thought – it is recognize the broader victimization and implications of terror due to the accompanying act.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:59 pmFVNY says:
I just feel that these hate crimes will rarely be used when straight, white males are the victims, ….
Then the officials should be removed from office – by impeachment, firing, non-election or whatever other available means since they would be committing a criminal act of negligence/dereliction of duty. This is an awful poor reason for getting rid of a law.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:03 pmFVNY
Stop being dishonest. What I DONT do, and what you ARE doing is say I am going to IGNORE what the bill SAYS and make up arbitrary, imaginary scenrios that MIGHT happen to oppose something. The reason I DONT do that is twofold. First it is plainly ignorant, second if I DID that then I would oppose EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING that cannot be argued against using that method. Then again you are just regurgitating what Rush told you to think about it. I recognize the language
November 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pmDo you know what would do your credibility a world of good? Come in here and ADMIT we have made good arguments, that we have ANSWERED your points. Whether or not we have convinced you show that we HAVE given you food for thought
____________________________________________________
The majority of the people here are intelligent, articulate, and make great arguments. I think the left is much better at making their case than the right is. While I disagree on most issues, I enjoy the conversation and getting to understand the other side of the argument. For me, its boring going to a right wing website and listening to everyone agree with each other all the time.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pmFVNY
It is easy to make an argument when you know WHY you believe what you believe. I can boil down my political ideology to THREE statements. That property doesnt have rights only people have rights and when there is a conflict people must ALWAYS be put before property. That you hold yourself, your enemies and your friends all to the same standards especially in foriegn policy, and that you never, NEVER stand with the powerful against the weak. There are a LOT of people here VERY well informed and I learn much from them. There isnt a lot of boilerplate dogma from them. That is one of the things that makes this such a good site
November 19th, 2009 at 3:18 pm(figures i’d find fvny squatting on this thread)
sorry pup, the civil rights movement wasn’t about you,
welfare queens aren’t keeping you from being as rich as the donald,
and virginia foxx is a bitter old lady – which makes her the perfect republican.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:21 pmMore Democrats voted against the Civil Rights bill than Republicans. Among the Democrat senators voting against the bill Al Gore Sr, J, William Fulbright and Robert Byrd.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:26 pmConservaTROLL
You are just incredibly IGNORANT. There were more DEMS than Reps. Not to mention MOST of the Southern Dems, and the VAST majority of the opposition came from the SOUTH, soon became Republicans since your idiocy is debunked IN THE THREAD ITSELF just STFU we already KNOW you are a moron and you have nothing else to offer. Even Newt Gingrich admitted that liberals deserved the credit for the Civil Rights movement. My GOD you are stupid
November 19th, 2009 at 3:32 pmcg
you’re right.
without the strong pressuring of a Democrat President,
the CRA might not have passed.
because democrats are more dedicated to the founding principles of our great nation.
and you are not.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:35 pmWhat the Reichwhiners always seem to forget is that those Democrats, virtually all from the South, who opposed civil rights legislation left the effing party because the official Democratic platform supported civil rights legislation.
Is it really so hard to Google “dixiecrat”?
November 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pmHistorical revisionism is part of the distortion of truth tactic that the GOP uses.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:46 pmAlzhiemers or dementia. Nuff said!
November 19th, 2009 at 4:05 pmEugene, you couldn’t find the truth with both hands and a flashlight. What a moron.
November 19th, 2009 at 5:36 pmconservative guy, google the Southern Strategy…and note the shift of conservatives in the South from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party…Sorry, there’s a reason why Reagan started his campaign in the town where 3 civil rights workers were KILLED…LYNCHED…
November 19th, 2009 at 6:21 pmAND not because it was your old run-of-the-mill friendly small town with good ole American values like apple pie…
November 19th, 2009 at 6:23 pmMany Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act but it’s passage was divided along North-South lines rather than Party lines.
LBJ and Democrats at the time knew that Southern Democrats would leave the party and help Republicans win elections in the future and this indeed happened.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:48 pmUSCkitty, Johnson turned the south Republican by signing the CRB.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:07 pmgranny foxx needs to grab herself a cup of metimucil, a warm compress and shut it, the old demented whore
November 19th, 2009 at 8:08 pmI was offering Reagan up as an example of the subtle pandering that is known as the Southern Strategy…
November 19th, 2009 at 8:28 pmShe means the 1860s.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Xisithrus says:
President Barack Obama has tapped a former top aide of his predecessor George W. Bush to a key post on a board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting
It’s somewhat disturbing Xisithrus, I agree.. although, I think it’s an intriguing play on his part.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
You call it appeasement.. I say it’s something entirely different – It’s risky, but clever. It could possibly blow up in his face.. but he has a record of true bipartisanship – his cabinet has more members of the opposing party than other presidents have had. I see it more in the idea of ‘divide and conquer‘.. it has a risk of causing dissension in the ranks.. but the more direct pull you have on these agents – the better. The more you divide yourself into two camps.. the more you fuel the enemies efforts against you. Rename your enemies ‘friends’.. it confuses the hell out of them.
Sun Tsu – If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:30 pmThere are few human phenotypes that evoke as much nausea and disdain as that embodied by Rep. Foxx. The nasty and vindictive dried-up old post-menopausal she-male that is Rep. Foxx is less pleasant to listen to than fingernails on a chalkboard and when you actually hear what she is saying, you realize that ignorance has no bounds.
So, Representative Foxx, take your lifetime of disappointment, anger, and greed out on something else and leave policy-making to people who aren’t warped and bitter.
November 20th, 2009 at 9:00 amConservaTROLL
I am smarter than you will ever be. Of course so are frutflies. Dont even talk to us about the truth. You would know the truth if it kicked down your front door ate your cornflakes then slept with your rubber ‘wife’. Just kill yourself punk. Everyone who has ever met you wants you to die face down in the gutter being eaten by maggots
November 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pmTruth eludes liberal bigots again!
Also, an article on Salon.com states:
“According to Congressional Quarterly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
passed the House 290-130, and Republican support for the bill was much
stronger than Democratic: 61 percent (152-96) of the Democrats
supported the legislation while 80 percent (138-34) of the Republicans
backed it. These numbers were similar in the Senate — 69 percent of
Democrats (46-21), backed the bill along with 82 percent of
Republicans (27-6).”
Here is the Salon.com article:
November 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am“Democratic bigots” by Jake Tapper, July 17, 2000.
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/17/rights/