The facts don't agree with this Republican view of things:
Janeane Garofalo nails the reason why these Republicans will tell bold-faced lies - there are still a lot of redneck idiots who will believe their lies:
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!
Comments (30)
Wow, got to love the generalization there with this half-wit "actress" who is supposedly an "expert" in neurology. Limbic brain my right butt cheek, I don't doubt mines larger than her's if only because of the fact that I actually have emotion. So apparently I'm racist (even though I have black friends) and people like me are racist (including a black man like Alan Keys who shares my same views about Obama) who also have black friends but are against Obama because of his bad decisions? Wow keep up the holier than thou attitude because it just shows how bigoted you are.
Prove to me that these people you call racist really are. You can't because they aren't. I'm really wishing I were African American (which is the PC term by the way, stop being racist and calling them black) right now so I could dislike you for being a white intellectual but unfortunately I can only settle with laughing at your dimwittedness.
1. Posted by Mike | April 30, 2009 8:22 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 20:22
As a long time listener to Janeane's radio show I can assure you that she is hardly a half-wit. She was right on the money about Iraq, calling it a Bush invented scam as early as summer 2002. She has been analyzing the right wing phenomenon along with journalists like John Dean, "Conservatives Without Conscience" and Christopher Hedges, "American Fascists", for about 9 years now frequently having authors and psychologists on to discuss the topic.
I can prove to you that the three people I know that went to tea-bagger parties are racists. I've been talking to them at family functions for 30 years. They are so stupid that they assume that I think just as they do so they let me into their insanely paranoid world. Do they have a problem with the black man? Well......they hate Mexicans,gays,Muslims,Jews, liberals, college professors and feminazis equally.
2. Posted by drlava | April 30, 2009 9:16 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 21:16
See that's the problem, making crass generalizations about an entire group of people due to a few bad apples. There are also those among liberals who are racist but you don't see them being called out on this site much less all of them being accused of being racist. Now if this chick had said certain people or a few racist's then I might have believed her but since she groups all protesters together then she has no clue what she's yapping about.
3. Posted by Mike | April 30, 2009 9:48 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 21:48
Foolish JournoList copy-cats at work: Lee Ward
Matthew Shepard was killed by two thugs named Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson. There is an in-depth look at the crime at the ABC News website, based on a "20/20" special investigation. You can read the whole thing here. Some excerpts:
Some free advice: when you start looking up to people like Janeane Garafalo as intellectual role models, you will start looking more and more like a fool.
I'll be waiting for your next post Lee, in which you denounce the Laramie Police Department as redneck idiots, and ABC News as bigots, hatemongers, homophobes, and racists.
4. Posted by Michael Laprarie | April 30, 2009 10:07 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 22:07
"I can prove to you that the three people I know that went to tea-bagger parties are racists"
Nice astroturfing.............
Right up there with 'I used to be a ______ until _______ .
5. Posted by GarandFan | April 30, 2009 10:28 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 22:28
Now, now, Michael... MediaMatters put a big official stamp across Rep. Foxx's face that clearly states "FALSE" in big red letters. And then backs it up with some words which, while they don't explicitly name the motive as Shepard's sexual orientation nor exclude robbery as a motive, certainly are enough to convince your average liberal intellectual that Foxx is LYING. I think it has to do with the limbic part of the brain or something... yeah...er... um ... you racist!
6. Posted by Steve | April 30, 2009 10:42 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 22:42
C'mon, Lee. You're so big on the facts and calling out liars, I'm looking forward to seeing you put Michael in his place with that 20/20 business when MediaMatters (a clearly unbiased source!) using a snippet from a NYT article (likewise!) says otherwise ... sort of! Let him have it, Lee!
Cuz, otherwise, you might have just shaken my faith in MediaMatters. They surely didn't know about the ABC report, right? Because if they did, that would mean they produced a smear video they knew was a .... Lie. Please tell me it's not that bad. Perhaps they just produced a smear video based on incompetency. Well, either way, there's a first time for everything, right?
7. Posted by Steve | April 30, 2009 10:50 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 22:50
"They are so stupid that they assume that I think just as they do so they let me into their insanely paranoid world. Do they have a problem with the black man? Well......they hate Mexicans,gays,Muslims,Jews, liberals, college professors and feminazis equally."
In other words they don't agree with everything you say and believe.
8. Posted by carol | April 30, 2009 10:57 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 22:57
Interesting pairing of videos.
First we have Virginia telling us that the Matthew Shepards murder was not a hate crime. She's right. Matthew was killed because he was smaller and had money. Russell and Aaron were just looking for easy money.
Next we have Janeane fomenting and promoting hatred of conservatives because they are different.
Fascinating!
9. Posted by Burt | April 30, 2009 11:09 PM
Posted on April 30, 2009 23:09
Garafalo is trying way, WAY too hard.
And Olbermann needs to can his Friday(?) end-of-show comedians' charity/welfare segment anyway. He doesn't look well wearing vagina pants.
10. Posted by bryanD | May 1, 2009 1:01 AM
Posted on May 1, 2009 01:01
Your silence on the follow up here is deafening, Lee. Did MediaMatters LIE or not? Is it possible for you to post a retraction here or do you just leave your original headline standing?
11. Posted by Steve | May 2, 2009 1:30 PM
Posted on May 2, 2009 13:30
Sorry to keep you waiting, Steve, but some of us have a life. Someday they'll go on sale at Wal-Mart and you can get one too.
There's no retraction needed here or I'd have posted one before the fringe lunatic rubes started howling at the moon.
Multiple witnesses testified to the facts as Media Matters relates them:
Could there have been more than one motive? Sure.
Had Matthew not been gay would the robbery have occurred anyway? Quite possibly, although 100% unprovable and therefore a really weak argument.
What can indisputably be proven is that Matthew's gayness was a factor, and we already know that only religious nutcake extremists would dispute that "hate" is not at the root of homophobia.
It should be no surprise that the wacko fringe that represent the Republican Party would find an opportunity to vent their hatred towards gays this way - by doing what Rep Foxx did and seek to cheapen Matthew's death in front of his mother.
The stupidity of the right wing hate mob can be literally mind-boggling for those who don't have as much experience as we do here at Wizbang Blue. Our proximity to a hotbed of conservative lunacy like our sister site "Wizbang" exposes us to their craziness on a regular basis - so we're used to it.
And, as we learn from Janeane -- the right wing fringe just lap up this stuff like dogs -- then roam the web regurgitating the bile whenever possible.
Shame on Rep Foxx. Preying on the stupid has become a conservative sport.
12. Posted by Lee Ward | May 2, 2009 5:29 PM
Posted on May 2, 2009 17:29
Lee, who are the multiple witnesses? You linked another blog that states the same thing you stated which was challenged by Steve and your proof is that other blog. There was nothing there that showed evidence of multiple witnesses.
13. Posted by Rodney | May 2, 2009 10:12 PM
Posted on May 2, 2009 22:12
if a person is dead because he was gay any more dead than the person who is dead because he had money the killer wanted?
14. Posted by ke_future | May 3, 2009 10:54 AM
Posted on May 3, 2009 10:54
Hate crime status means that federal help is more easily applied to the investigation of the crime.
The skinheads on the right are totally against the higher federal focus applied to hate crimes, and the GOP stands up and protects the skinheads.
Go figure - one might think the conservative right has their priorities all wrong - protecting skinhead nazis who hate gays and blacks, but the conservative extremists in the GOP have a lot in common with skinheads, don't they?
15. Posted by Lee Ward | May 3, 2009 11:26 AM
Posted on May 3, 2009 11:26
You're confusing what the ACLU does with the conservative right.
Did you know that people's religious beliefs are protected just like race and sexual orientation? Someone known to spew vitriol against religious people could find themselves on the wrong side of the "hate" crime laws if they ever kill someone during a robbery and it turns out the victim was religious. A religious person seeing someone in need tries to help and that makes them an easy target. Then someone will write that what can indisputably be proven is that the victim's religion was a factor.
16. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 2:13 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 14:13
Oh you can believe all you want- but try taking away my right s and you'll get thrown in jail - as it should be.
But not to worry - you can then evangelize to the prison population - you're sure to go to heaven then.
"A religious person seeing someone in need tries to help and that makes them an easy target. "
Yeah, just look at how Rep Foxx tries to help the skinhead nazis avoid federal prosecution for the killingl a gay man. She's SUCH a good little Christian.
17. Posted by Lee Ward | May 4, 2009 3:38 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 15:38
Judge not lest ye be judged! Those of us who don't believe in gay "marriage" have a host of reasons and none of them involve hatred!
18. Posted by Gayle Miller | May 4, 2009 4:05 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 16:05
Using Garofolo as a role model or intellectual beacon of intelligence is sort of like taking your moral choices from clues provided by Daffy Duck! She is (if you'd ever listened to any of her interviews) a complete neurotic with an endless litany of "issues". I'm not even sure that she is capable of cohesive and coherent thought processes!
I do not approve of illegal immigration because to me, it is like some stranger breaking into my house and demanding the right to stay because "they are already there" and that makes no sense to me at all! My grandparents were immigrants (legally) and I am grateful that they were permitted to make their home here, that my mother and her brothers and sisters (numerous) were born here and that I was given the opportunity to be borne in this beautiful country and grow to adulthood here, being the beneficiary of all that this nation has to offer its people!
19. Posted by Gayle Miller | May 4, 2009 4:10 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 16:10
I'll be visiting you in jail, but converting such a tough case may be too much to hope for.
The perpetrators are serving life sentences and there's nothing more the feds can do to them with "hate" laws. That's the problem with "hate" crime legislation; it's used for political purposes, not justice. Political fortunes shift and those in power can define "hate" in ways you won't like, Lee. Better to leave that genie in the bottle.
20. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 6:18 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 18:18
All the hate crime status does is bring to bear federal resources on the investigation and prosecution of the crime. It is needed in those instances where the local prosecutors and police might be inclined to look the other way or operate more slowly as the result of their own biases.
Anyplace there is a Republican majority the skinhead nazis would have a greater opportunity to get away with something like this.
That's a fact. Rep Foxx proves it.
21. Posted by Lee Ward | May 4, 2009 6:22 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 18:22
Why can't you just say that it makes "hate" a federal crime? The problem is that deciding what "hate" is, is up to the federal prosecutor for each district. If, like skin color, sexual orientation is one of those attributes with no other bearing on a person's character then there are homosexual criminals just like there are heterosexual criminals. If two criminals rob and kill someone they can be charged with a federal hate crime if it turns out they are gay and the victim was straight. Maybe not in California (district 9), but certainly in Wyoming (district 10), Texas (district 5), Georgia (district 11) and several other districts. It all depends on the prosecutor's politics, and if Obama doesn't like it he could remove them, but only at a high political cost following the uproar over Bush's similar action.
We already have federal laws that allow people to be prosecuted for denying another person's civil rights, which is used when local law enforcement fails to act or even when jurors fail to convict on state charges. Adding yet another means for the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement is just a political statement, but one that advocates may come to regret.
22. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 7:26 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 19:26
Skinheads everywhere are cheering you Republicans on, Mac Lorry - but the rest of us can't figure out why Republicans are so determined to make it easier for skinheads to get away with murdering gays?
What's in it for you? The satisfaction of having less homosexuals in our country? That makes you happy?
23. Posted by Lee Ward | May 4, 2009 7:31 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 19:31
Here's a better argument. Would you want someone like Rep Foxx deciding what "hate" is under federal law? She's not alone and there's no guarantee Republicans won't win the next batch of elections if the economy gets worse or if there's another 9/11 type attack. Why give them this tool to go after people like Janeane Garofalo who's words are filled with hate.
You would never let a conservative use such hateful language and broad brush insults against peaceful protesters, so why would you post such hate from a liberal? Could it be that "hate" is relative and depends on a person's politics? Get the point?
24. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 7:40 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 19:40
Rep Foxx is a legislator - she gets to help decide what laws are written, yes - I just object to -- and feel the importance of pointing out that -- the Republican position on this issue is one that protects skinhead nazis instead of gays.
The reasons for that is fairly obvious, despite efforts to personalize this and make it Janeane Garfalo's problem instead.
Poor, poor Republicans - Gays are murdered simply because they are gay - but you're complaining because a comedienne said GOPers are brainless.
You poor, poor folks.
25. Posted by Lee Ward | May 4, 2009 7:45 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 19:45
She's not the only Republican out there, and some of them are, or have been federal prosecutors who will be using this law. The law says nothing about protecting gays other than the name of the act, which has no weight in court. It's only about "hate" and what that is depends on who you ask.
In the future it could be used to prosecute gays who go after religious groups. Maybe they will follow someone from church and run them off the road, and instead of being charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter, they'll be prosecuted under federal hate crime legislation. Nice blunt tool you have there to protect gays, Lee.
26. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 7:59 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 19:59
So hate speech is ok if you're a comedienne, even if it's not part of the act. Maybe skin heads will claim they are comediennes.
27. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 8:04 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 20:04
Hate crimes legislation is a blunt object, and in any political brawl, it's not smart to leave blunt objects laying around. Besides, being convicted of murder is not getting away with anything.
28. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 8:22 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 20:22
Come on, Mac - admit it. The 800 lb gorilla in the living room is that the evangelical right is afraid that hate crime laws might be applied against a church that promotes that Homosexuals should burn in hell.
right?
29. Posted by Lee Ward | May 4, 2009 9:13 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 21:13
Evangelical's believe what the Bible says, that unrepentant sinners got to hell, and yes, the homosexual act is listed as a sin, as is teaching that sin is not sin. So if federal hate crime laws can be used against religious speech the entire first amendment will be overturned, not just the free speech part. That should scare the hell out of you.
Personally I don't hate gays, but I don't agree with their lifestyle. Nevertheless, if they want to live that way, so be it. However, I believe there are non-religious, non-hateful reasons to limit taxpayer resource to procreation couples. If the biological argument is not sufficient to limit such benefits to procreation couples, then there's no valid reason remaining to deny any two adults the same benefits. Spinster siblings should be able to join so that they can take advantage of "family" medical plans, and a surviving sibling should be able to retain some part of the other sibling's social security or pension. If you disagree than it must be because you hate spinster siblings, right?
30. Posted by Mac Lorry | May 4, 2009 9:47 PM
Posted on May 4, 2009 21:47