Monday, November 10, 2008

Hard Truths

I really try very hard to maintain a pluralist attitude when reading about politics or absorbing information. But sometimes the truth of a situation doesn't allow for it, and I just have to say something - for the record - to all of my Republican friends:

There sure are a lot of racists, xenophobes, and homophobes in your party, and often times, it makes it very hard to take you seriously, and increasingly difficult to remember that these zealots are not the leaders of the party but (hopefully) a fringe, when they are so often the voice of the party.

Take care of this, could ya? (Helpful Hint: Electing Jason Chaffetz was a move in the opposite direction...)

Thanks.

29 comments:

  1. I am assuming that you would agree that "truths", whether they be Hard or not, are based on facts, yes?

    If you agree, then could you please demonstrate for me any facts that certain Republicans are racists?

    Since you singled out Jason Chaffetz, could you offer a reference or a citation to anything Chaffetz has said or written that would qualify as racist?

    Not something someone said about Chaffetz...for example, I could cite this blog entry as saying Chaffetz was racist because you said so, but that would be pretty meaningless, yes?

    So, not something someone else said about Chaffetz...I want to see your reference, your citations, your proof, anything factual that would back up and validate your blog entry about hard truths.

    To help you on your search for truth, here is the definiation of racism:

    rac⋅ism /Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm]

    –noun

    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.



    Thank you in advance for providing that information.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Could you please demonstrate for me any facts that certain Republicans are xenophobes?

    Since you singled out Jason Chaffetz, could you offer a reference or a citation to anything Chaffetz has said or written that would qualify as xenophobic?

    To help you on your search for truth, here is the definition of xenophobe:

    xen⋅o⋅phobe / Pronunciation [zen-uh-fohb, zee-nuh-]

    –noun

    a person who fears or hates foreigners, strange customs, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since you singled out Jason Chaffetz, could you offer a reference or a citation to anything Chaffetz has said or written that would qualify as homophobic?

    To help you on your search for truth, here is the definition of homophobe:

    ho⋅mo⋅phobe /Pronunciation [hoh-muh-fohb]

    –noun

    a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

    Thanks in advance for your references. Just like yourself I'm sure, I find ad hominum attacks with no hard factual truths to back them up to be a sign of someone who hasn't thought out their position very well. Since Im sure you'd never do that, I look forward to seeing the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not sure how Jason's immigration policy slipped by you Frankie, but I would assume it's related closely to the time you spend shilling for Jason that could be spent becoming educated on the issues.

    http://utahamicus.com/tag/jason-chaffetz/

    I lump homophobes, racists, and xenophobes into the same group of idiocy because that is where they all belong. I have no evidence that Chaffetz is a homophobe, but a simple look at his immigration policy screams Bat-Shit Crazy. Saying Jason fears brown skin is a truth, and that, in essence, is xenophobia at it's crescent.

    He's going to be an embarrassment representing Utah as a federal delegate. Without a doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is pretty interesting to see that Jason's immigration policy is closer to Obama's than what Jason's Democrat opponent was. It isn't obvious, you have to read what Bennion's was, ended up, and read what Obama wrote on his website, and what Jason wrote.

    So you are calling Obama a what?

    I would think twice about calling a president elect such names.

    That said, Jason is more a voice of reason compared to:

    There are people that want to round up all 12 million illegals, and are mad that Jason DOESN'T want to do that. Jason only wanted facilities where the government wouldn't have to catch and release felons. There are 600,000 they have let go. We wouldn't have to build facilities for that many, as we just need a temporary facility for convicted criminals, to be held prior to deportation.

    There are people that don't want anyone new moving in, where Jason wants to fix LEGAL immigration so it doesn't take so long to legally come here.

    There are people that think providing any temporary worker visa is wrong, where Jason agrees it is a great way to bring people out of the shadows, get rid of the fake IDs, but this in NO WAY provides a pathway to citizenship in front of those wanting to immigrate who have followed the rules.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

    Create Secure Borders
    Obama and Biden want to preserve the integrity of our borders. He
    supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the
    border and at our ports of entry.

    Improve Our Immigration System
    Obama and Biden believe we must fix the dysfunctional immigration
    bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep
    families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

    Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
    Obama and Biden will remove incentives to enter the country illegally
    by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

    Bring People Out of the Shadows
    Obama and Biden support a system that allows undocumented immigrants
    who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the
    back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

    Work with Mexico
    Obama and Biden believe we need to do more to promote economic
    development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.
    ______

    Now if you look at Obama's plan, you will see what looks like a conflict:
    Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally vs. Bring People Out of the Shadows

    You will notice Obama wants to put those here without legal permission in the very back of the line - at the same place those that are applying from where every the illegal immigrants are from.

    If you take that into account, the only one out to lunch was Bennion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Have truths..

    You should also take into account that Obama and Biden both came out against same sex marriage. They want the hospital rights, etc. It sure sounds like what the LDS church said recently.

    And you are calling Obama a what?

    You don't even know your own party.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ah, Arc... still too spineless to put your real name on your comments I see. Such courage of conviction!

    Biden actually supports the legalization of gay marriage, so might want to fact check a bit more before running off and sounding like an idiot. And Obama opposes the redefinition of "marriage" but does so in opposition to the states defining marriage at all, not our of an intent to discriminate against one group over another.

    And finally, notice no mention of "tent cities" from Obama or Biden? That matter. Chaffetz frightens me. And should you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Biden as a running mate to Obama doesn't. I checked.

    Jason didn't promote tent cities either.

    You should have called this post "Half Truths".

    ReplyDelete
  10. You quote this as proof?

    >http://utahamicus.com/tag/jason-chaffetz/

    If you insist on quoting what other people say he says then you have nothing. . . especially since this is a site dedicated to twisting what he said for political gain.

    I recommend that you explore a bit more and not be afraid to read from original sources and not just derivative (and heavily biased) works.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In response to a direct question from debate moderator Gwen Ifill--“Do you support gay marriage?”--Biden answered, “No.”

    He added: “(Neither) Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to, to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths, the determination what you call it.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. Man, you Chaffetz folk are just desperate to cover his tracks!

    The link, Bradley, was to the Utah Amicus keyword collection of all SLTribune and DNews articles linked to in previous posts. No bias, just links to actual articles. Read before responding please.

    And exactly, arc. He doesn't support redefinition of marriage. With a tinsey tiny bit more reading, you could also see that he doesn't support the state defining marriage at all, as that - in his own words - is "up to the churches." (i.e. he supports equality through civil unions).

    C'mon people, this isn't rocket science. Bring me an intelligent argument if you're going to bother commenting at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OK, I just spent the better part of 2 hours going through the Utah Amicus site and its referecend links, etc, that you posted.

    There is nothing there said or written by Chaffetz that fits any of teh definitions of racism, xenophobe, or homophobe that I posted for you.

    If you think you saw or heard one on that Amicus site or one of its referenced links would you please post what it is.

    I really want to see or hear what it is.

    Stop wasting my time giving me links that don't show what Chaffetz said or wrote and making the false claim that supposedly the link has the proof. I wasted 2 hours trying to find it.

    Stop wasting my time making comments about arc or me, and prove yourself:

    The hard truth appears to be that you read an amicus post that was devoid of anything but ad hominum claims and you copied the message into your blog without verifying any part of it.

    Am I wrong? Prove it.

    I say there's nothing there that fits any of those 3 definitions and I am calling you out on it. If there is something there, quote it. Prove it.

    I want what Chaffetz said or wrote in quotes, and I want it to fit into the definition of racism, xenophobe, or homophobe, and I want a citation where I can look it up and verify.

    I'm waiting and everyone who reads your blog is waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BY the way, you also have to demonstrate your original generalization that there are a lot of racists, xenophobes, and homophobes in the Republican party.

    Wheres the data on that? How does the data on the number of those -"phobes" compare to the numbers found in other parties? Is there a correlation between -phobes and party affiliation? whats the correlation and whats the standard deviation in the data?

    Or did you just package that quote from some other website that also didn't have any substance?

    Instead of striving for a "pluralistic attitude when absorbing information", you might want to try using a skeptical attitude and verify what you read before you perpetuate non factual information.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just fyi...If you verify before you perpetuate, you wont get called out in public on your own blog as often.

    For example, I believe I verified my position before I posted my original comments. Your proof or lack of proof will demonstrate whether or not you did the same.

    With everyone else, I anxiously await your proof.

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way, you also wrote:

    "Saying Jason fears brown skin is a truth"

    I say its a lie that you have written here. Prove me wrong. Show me anywhere that Jason Chaffetz "fears brown skin".

    Anywhere.

    I say you're a liar and I cite the above quotation of yours as my proof.

    Lets see yours.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ROFL! Frankie, this conversation is most entertaining.

    But for the sake of argument.

    TENT CITIES.

    There's my justification.

    Also, the Republican Party has embraced, in campaign after campaign, fear and reactionary talking points, up to an including embracing latent racism, sometimes even courting the vote. Read yourself up on some Reagan. Read yourself up on some Bradley effect (something the RNC was all but hoping for this cycle), and the recent reports from MN (google it: Minnesota, KKK, Republicans, 2008... it's not tough). Read yourself up on some history of the GOP and the south. For god's sake, read up on something!

    As for the "calling out," I look at it more as an opportunity. The best way to get the best of an adversary is to let them speak. Type away, my friend (and seriously, consider putting all of your thoughts in ONE comment? While the multiple comments are great for our Technorati stats, it really makes you look like an idiot.)

    Good fun, I must say.

    ReplyDelete
  18. frankie ray in two hours of searching the links on the Amicus keyword search listing you couldn't find this: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10397367 which was the second link in? That's sadly tragic. As for the readers here, I am one, and Jason, I think you've answered your own question from last week. Chaffetz's campaign is where the Ron Paul zealots went. Makes sense. Crazy attracts crazy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chaffetz is a racist, because he sees crime committed by those who are different as worse than those who are white. Putting other human beings into barb wire fenced tent cities is not an idea that comes from a sane mind. So it would seem he is also crazy. I'm embarrassed my district did not want better for itself. I fear we are too poorly informed to vote for our own values.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jeff P said..."frankie ray in two hours of searching the links on the Amicus keyword search listing you couldn't find this: http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_10397367 which was the second link in? That's sadly tragic."

    Actually, I found that link Jeff, and I repeat: There is nothing in that article, or any other links on that amicus post, that Chaffetz said or wrote that fits the definition of racist, xenophobe, or homophobe so I will type the following s-l-o-w-e-r for you this time so you have time to catch it:

    If you think you saw something in those links that does fit the definition, then quote it here so I know what you see.

    My point is that you are very intellectually lazy to throw those terms out and not be able to back them up. You have yet to back them up and I am still waiting.

    Since you see my 2 hours of not finding anything so sadly tragic it should be really really easy for you to simply look up the link on amicus and post the quote here that would fit any of those definitions, so why not do it?

    I am still waiting. You are still failing to deliver, because you cant. If I'm wrong, prove it.

    I mean you should be able to post dozens of actual quotes right?

    Im waiting...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous said..."Chaffetz is a racist, because he sees crime committed by those who are different as worse than those who are white"

    Really? Show me one citation anywhere where Chaffetz has said or written that he sees crimes committed by those who are different as worse than those who are white.

    Can anyone here...anyone?...back up anything they say?

    Or do you find it valid to make any claim as silly as this one just because you disagree with what he actually does say?

    I'm waiting on you too now.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mrs. Ray, I can't say that anyone who reads here will really give a shit how long you wait. It seems to have been spelled out for you several times in the comments above but as I like to join in the fun too:

    Tent Cities = Racist.

    Your stupidity in this comment thread sure makes more sense of the fact that a looney like Chaffetz could be elected as a congressman.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tent Cities = Racist.

    Besides the fact that no one has yet to cite a Chaffetz quote that one could work with...the non-reference of "tent cities = racism" is factually incorrect.

    "tent Cities" does not equal "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."..which is what the definition of racism is.

    I even gave you the definition to work with, so c'mon show some initiative and at least use it.

    Does anyone here understand that words have actual meanings?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Talk around town here in DC is that no one wants to touch Chaffetz. Utah reps generally get the one eyebrow raised treatment anyway for their "quirkyness" but Chaffetz is a pariah. I give the guy one term before Utahn's realize how ineffective he will be as a representative. You can be as "red" as you like, but sending up a congressman like Chaffez is moronic in scope. No congressman wants to be aligned with such a figure, they become the pariah of the House, they pass nothing, are invited to sponsor very little, and also face the uphill climb of being in the minority party this go round. District 3 (where I grew up) has effectively voted itself a big zero in representation, and it's disappointing to me. Were it not for the dirty delegate dealings, Chaffetz would not even be on the ballot. What an embarrassment. Oh and to those of you attempting to redefine Chaffetz as a noble figure: It says more about your lack of understanding of what xenophobia in regards to immigration is really about, and the damages that causes in families and communities than it does your understanding of politics and even your own candidate. Who definitely fits the xenophobe mold.

    Congrats District 3... you've made yourself the laughingstock of not only the state, but the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Marshall said "Your stupidity in this comment thread sure makes more sense of the fact that a looney like Chaffetz could be elected as a congressman."

    Actually, the hard truth is really this: The more that Jason Chaffetz was criticized by Amicus, and Mike Honda etc, the more he was able to correctly state his position, and the more he correctly stated his position the more people responded.

    AS a result, the really hard truth for this blogs author is that he is part of a very small minority, less than 23% obviously, and the vast majority of thinking individuals were given the chance to view the charges against Chaffetz in context with his actual words and chose to vote for him...and THAT my friend Marshall is how Chaffetz could be elected to Congress.

    As a result, the hard truth is that the very small minority of people who think like the author of this blog, are left with nothing to do but impotently throw out words like "racism" and "xenophobe" even though they have demonstrated tonight that they don't know what they mean.

    As a result, instead of actually posting a simple quote to back up their argument, all they can do is smugly make additional ad hominum attacks on those who ask them to back it up.

    So I leave you to your smugness, and the impotency attached to it. Feel better now?

    At least you learned the definition of racism, xenophobe and homophobe.

    As they say in all the French parts of Utah: "Au revoir, y'all"

    ReplyDelete
  26. JasonThe, I hate to bring such bad news, but based on what I'm reading from this Frankie Ray chick, your commenters are getting dumber. I think your test was successful though. Definitely found the hide out of the Ron Paul Tards, hiding out in District 3, carefully searching the blogosphere for any mention of their racist hero Chaffetz. Nice to know where we can expect the next batch of crazy to be brewing in 2010. :) P.S. What happened to that research project for KVNU and BlogTalkRadio... you still in?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is it racist to treat crimes by one race differently than crimes by another? If so, then those who support the status quo are the real racists.

    In this state today, if you are caught making fraudulent documents or some other non-violent crime, you will be treated differently depending on your citizenship status. If you are a legal citizen, the state will try you and if they convict you, you'll be imprisoned.

    However, if you're here illegally, you fall under federal jurisdiction. Because there is no federal prison here (Democrats call this a tent city - but it's actually a prison), there is a high probability you will not even be arrested for your crime. Ask any police officer if this is true - I have.

    Jason Chaffetz wants to build a federal prison (not a tent city, but a prison) so that everyone who commits a crime can be treated equally.

    The Department of Homeland Security has published an OIG Report showing that more than 600,000 illegal immigrants who have been *convicted* of crimes (not just those who were picked up and released when state officials realized they were under federal jurisdiction) are living freely in this country.

    It is NOT racist to enforce the law against all people equally. It is wrong to suspend the law against non-citizens while enforcing it against everyone else. That's the status quo and that's what Jason Chaffetz has suggested changing. Such an idea is not extreme. The only thing that is extreme is the lies and distortions coming from the author of this blog and others like him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What if we gave Chaffetz the benefit of the doubt for now?

    He's never going to get his tent cities built...that idea is just too looney to get any rational supporters. He might find some friends with his idea of making the immigration process easier and quicker. If he really supports sensible immigration policy and can get some progress made in this area he might just be worthwhile.

    My gripe is with jokers like this last anonymous commenter who, like most irrational anti-immigration types, insists on enforcing our current set of stupid immigration laws rather than changing them so they are sensible. Legal immigrants don't need to create false documents. Why not make our illegals legal and make it easier for their former countrymen to get into our country legally too?

    If you guys really don't have a racist fear of these immigrants join me in supporting an open door immigration policy. Lets make those who are illegal aliens legal residents so they can be an openly productive and positive element in our society. If you really aren't the racist bastards I think you are try proving it with some decent rational proposals.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Riley,
    There was not dirt on any delegate dealing. I am a state delegate.

    You forgot, Both Cannon and Leavitt way out spent Jason on delegates. Leavitt was providing toys and drinks. Both were good men, but blew their 7 minutes.

    Many delegates I know, as I was one of them, didn't know 100% who they were going to vote for until the convention, and many until the speech. Most had spent hours checking the options out prior to convention. Jason just did better. Why the sour grapes.

    You forget that Jason won convention by almost 60%, won primary by 60% and won general with over 170,000 votes and 66%.

    ReplyDelete