Talking Dirty: Congressman Reads Long List Of Sex Acts Not In Hate Crimes Bill (VIDEO)

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) likely set a congressional record Thursday for the most sexual terms mentioned in one speech on the House floor.

"I apologize to our transcriber, but I want to put into the record what we have to put up with in the Rules Committee," says Hastings, who then goes on to read a long, long, long list of sexual behavior that is specifically not protected by hate crimes legislation that passed the House Thursday.

Watch:

The bill does extend protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals.

Comments

[naleph]

05:14 PM on 05/22/2009

Here's a site that claims he is reading a list of what is protected under the act!!!!!
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hastings-wants-protection-for-sex-perverts

He clearly says the Republicans made the list of -philias to specifically exclude them from the hate crimes legislation. This web site claims it's his list of what is protected!!! They cannot hear what they don't want to hear.

[robXdion]

10:33 AM on 04/30/2009

This is the unedited uncut version of Rep. Hastings entire speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihukKPWmvKQ

[Graywolf48]

08:39 AM on 04/30/2009

Thank you Congressman Hastings. I think one or more GOP staffers probably spent several hours or days on the Google and reading the dictionary to develop that list. I also note that it was the hate filled , bigot Virginia Foxx of NC that asked the Speaker for a recorded vote. As usual, the Republicans will fall back to their tired old mantra of "god, guns and gays" to try and divide the American people and energize their narrow, ignorant, bigoted base. I just hope this Bill passes the Senate, where I know the GOP will do all they can to kill it. After all, it is hate and fear that drives the GOP engine. Unfortunately, I'm also sure they will find several allies among the "Blue Dog" Democrats.

[lynnn]

03:05 AM on 04/30/2009

Steven King is so Racist. African Americans always vote over 90 percent for Dems (in the bast 40 years) the parties once split the AA vote, just like the Repubs split the Latino vote w/the Dems (until this year).

[WilliamL]

08:19 AM on 04/30/2009

those who took the time to vote.

[lynnn]

02:51 AM on 04/30/2009

Hmm we've had hate crimes laws for many years and we've yet to criminalize thoughts.

[Tyrione]

02:22 AM on 04/30/2009

We are now on minute 7 with only one urgent piece of legislation: Autism.

Everything else is a diatribe of the past or on religion. Holy Dung Hill Batman!

Now at minute 7:30 we have a dweeb discussing the CIA memo leaks. Save it for Chambers and special committee, mkayy?

Now at minute 9 we get Mississippi to honor a calvary regiment. What the hell is this? Is this Congress or an NRA meeting?

Now at minute 10 is Pennsylvania warning us of Debt Day. I think I'm going to throw up.

So far we have 1 request for addressing an urgent matter of our Citizenry--Autism.

This is a freakin' joke.

No wonder the founders called the House the House of the Common Folk. That's too kind. These people are the Hill Folk in expensive suits.

Now at 12:45 we finally get something important: Credit Card debt and the Bank fraud.

Now at 13:30 we have a Clean Government, free of corruption legislation. DOA. There is no way corrupt politicians [the incumbents] are going to pass this one.

Mr Texas is whining that Network News is giving Obama more video coverage than GW. Bush received in his first 100 days.

Can we fire these idiots? Gawd people you vote in morons!!!!

At minute 16 we get something intelligent with Health Care Budget reform.

Shucks! Now we have a Fear Monger on Terror and Weaponry.

No wonder this country never evolves more rapid than a Glacier moves.

[Tyrione]

02:06 AM on 04/30/2009

The diatribe [unedited] by the religious crap is appalling in the Secular US Congress's House Chamber. Just do your job and save your sermons for the Church of your choice. We have real problems to deal with and getting this country back and moving without that garbage rambling.

[historymatters]

01:06 AM on 04/30/2009

I applaud Rep. Hastings for highlighting the asinine levels that Congressional debates sink to on a regular basis.

[euthman]

12:34 AM on 04/30/2009

I don't understand why being murdered because you're gay is more tragic than being murdered because you're a clerk in a convenience store. Nor do I understand why the the former crime is more heinous than the latter. Why does the gay man need more protection under the law than does the clerk? Unless someone can explain these to me, I'll continue to regard hate-crimes legislation as little more than political pandering to special interest groups.

In a broader context, what is the need for Federal laws involving common street crimes? The original problem that led to Federal anti-lynching laws was back in the day, all white juries in the south refused to convict white defendants for crimes against blacks. In recent decades, have local juries failed to convict defendants of crimes against gays and other minorities? They sure sent those yahoos who brutally killed James Byrd right straight to Death Row. Matthew Shepard's killers each got two consecutive life terms. It's true that bigotry isn't dead, but still, this isn't 1957.

[historymatters]

12:46 AM on 04/30/2009

Hate crimes legislation attempts to protect people who are targeted by criminals because of who they are. Two guys walk down the street. One is wearing khakis, an Oxford shirt, and has short haircut. The other guy is wearing khakis, an Oxford shirt, eye makeup, dangly earrings, and has long flowing hair. Another group of guys come along. They ignore the first guy and beat the crap out of the second guy just because they think he's gay.

Nobody who supports hate crime legislation thinks that gays being murdered is more tragic than anyone else being murdered. They object to the fact that somebody who happens to look like a gay guy is singled out SOLELY because of how he looks and is beaten, harassed, or murdered. It's really quite simple.

Hate crimes legislation continues the U.S. tradition of having federal laws and Constitutional amendments (such as the Voting Rights Act, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, and so on) that guarantee all citizens equal protection under the law regardless of where they happen to live. Because hate crimes are not "common street crimes" (see my explanation above), they warrant legislation at the federal level.

[toadicux]

01:26 AM on 04/30/2009

When the heck is beating someone up not against the law on a state level already not a crime?
How does singling out certain crimes for extra punishment equal protection under the law?

If you want a society where you hear only what you want all the time you are for hate-crime legislation. You do realize this will be used against people who simply say things "hateful" without any violence implied.

[urfree2speak]

01:06 AM on 04/30/2009

Please.........go AWAY!

[EyeDoc007]

10:50 PM on 04/29/2009

I think that people with a crimson apex, otherwise known as a redhead or The R-Word, should be included in hate-crime legislation.

[Justtellthetruth]

11:20 PM on 04/29/2009

On south park they are known as "Gingers" (thats Cartman' slur for them) and they are subject to a myriad of discriminatory cracks and behaviors throughout a number of episodes. It's the only bigotry that I find hilariously funny.

[DanteLabon]

01:12 AM on 04/30/2009

I don't get that one at all...redhead chicks are hot. :)

[smarternu]

10:04 PM on 04/29/2009

What a crappy Video player

[huzzah]

10:25 PM on 04/29/2009

I concur.

[OrganOfThought]

10:54 PM on 04/29/2009

I agree

[rextrek]

09:56 PM on 04/29/2009

FYI - Mathew Shepards mother was THER and had to SIT thru all this BS Hateful Rhetoric from the Republicans..how she kept her tongue? I have NO idea......I don't think I could have.

[brendanm]

11:16 PM on 04/29/2009

Why would Rep. Foxx's (R-NC) claim that her son's murder was a "hoax" bother her?

[weatherwaxx]

11:52 PM on 04/29/2009

You have no idea what this woman has had to go through in the ten years since her kid was killed. The right-wing screech-monkeys have been trying to label her son's murder a 'drug-related crime' ever since it came out that a bunch of 'normal' boys beat and literally crucified her kid for being gay.

I just wonder if any of these lying creeps had the nerve to look her in the eye.

[Strywever]

09:49 PM on 04/29/2009

He did this due to regressives' repeated false claims about what was protected by the bill. Lying apparently is the only way they can keep their base good and riled up against the Democrats, since the reality simply isn't that scary.

Their morals and values certainly are flexible, aren't they?

[weatherwaxx]

11:52 PM on 04/29/2009

WHAT morals and values?

[Grunty1]

11:58 PM on 04/29/2009

It is easy to be flexible when you have none.

[RockBottom]

09:47 PM on 04/29/2009

Kinky B @ stard!

[wadenelson1]

09:36 PM on 04/29/2009

They couldn't get John Boehner or Rush Limbaugh or Michelle Bachmann or someone more appropriate to read this?

[weatherwaxx]

11:59 PM on 04/29/2009

This was meant to be a refutation of all the whack-job claims that the fundies have been pelting their Congressional representatives with all week. These chuckleheads, goaded by their pulpit-pounding preachers, seriously believe that the hate-crime bill would (gasp!) make it a crime to tell their sincere, Christian congregations that it's okay to go out and kill gay people for Jeebus.

Fact is, the bill only prohibits criminal ACTS. They can still talk as much hateful crap as they want.

IF you got Bonehead or Limburger or the Bachmaniac to read it, they'd get all confused and say these things WERE in the bill.

And they might get a little over-excited, too... which would be really disgusting.