About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Pat Robertson asks whether the hate crimes bill protects someone who "likes to have sex with ducks" or "little boys"

April 30, 2009 3:28 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Text of the bill as passed by the House of Representatives.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Victor Colorado (April 30, 2009 3:30 pm ET)
         
      Holy crap, I thought he was dead.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RABBITLUVR (April 30, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
           
        He IS dead... as far as being a decent human being is concerned.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (April 30, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
           
        That was Fallfar.  Robberman's time may be short, however.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Übermensch (April 30, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
         
      He obviously missed the point of the bill
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
         
      How about Debbie Wasserman Schultz's stand to deny the inclusion of veterans from the hate crime bill. She says it belittles the real victims to include vets.   http://moelane.com/2009/04/24/rep-debbie-wasserman-schultz-d-fl-20-veterans-not-worth-protecting/
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mk3872 (April 30, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
           

        Can't defend your boy Pat so you go after not including other groups?

        WEAK ...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
             
          Well excuse me, the thread was about the hate crime bill, I find it reprehensible that our veterans would be excluded from protection under the bill. Isn't it just another way of supporting the troops to include them? I cannot understand how it belittles others to include them, can you?  I would love to know how other congresspeople feel about it, dem or rep.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mk3872 (April 30, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
               
            Riiiiight ... So how about those all-inclusive Repubs that claim Matthew Sheppard's death was a hoax that say protecting gays makes them wanna throw up (Boehner) or vote against a hate crimes bill?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
                 
              What I do know is that the dems threw out an amendment that would have excluded pedophiles from the bill and have excluded the elderly and veterans from protection. What an advanced thought process! Very noble indeed.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by harley (April 30, 2009 5:27 pm ET)
                   

                 

                You don't know anything, and that's been obvious since you started making a fool of yourself on MMFA, you terrorist teabagger.

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (April 30, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
               
            And you can show us that there are crimes being committed against soldiers because they are soldiers? I'm pretty sure that there aren't these occurrences out there, because as a whole, a vast majority of this country respects, and wishes well our troops. They don't need hate crime protections. 
            Report Abuse
          • Author by harley (April 30, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
               

             

            Vets shouldn't be in a hate crime bill, you hick teabagger, because contrary to your perverse beliefs, vets have never been discriminated against like gays and minorities.  Are you really THAT STUPID or are you just pretending, you terrorist teabagging moron?

             

             

            Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (April 30, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
           

         

        Debating the bill on the House floor today, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) called Matthew Shepherd's murder "a hoax" and denied that it was a hate crime. 

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (April 30, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
             
          Wow. Just, well, wow...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (April 30, 2009 6:07 pm ET)
             

          Wow.  That is remarkable.  Now I see why "fair" liberal is trying so hard to change the subject away from the Republicans.  That is unbelievable.  I am actually not a supporter of hate crime legislation, but to call his murder a hoax and pretend it was not associated with him being gay (when the perpetrators admit that it was) is remarkable. 

          You better keep spinning faster and faster "fair" liberal.  This one is gonna be hard to get people to ignore.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 8:41 pm ET)
               
            Actually I am inclined to believe that this was a hate crime , Shepard's murder that is . And I do believe that there should be stiffer penalties for people who commit them. But the rep was referring to the "hate crime " aspect of it as a hoax not the fact that he was murdered. She claimed as others have that is was simply a robbery.  Apparently there are conflicting reports of the circumstances of the crime.  Based of the testimory of the girlfriends, I am inclined as I said to call it a hate crime, so I disagree with her.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Tbone Slickens (May 01, 2009 9:25 am ET)
                 

              Try as you might Fair, reading comprehension is at a minimum in this echo chamber.  

              It is clear that the congresswoman was speaking of the "hoax" in terms of the hate crime bill, not the ACTUAL murder.  She has  since apologized for her "poor choice of words".  

              Report Abuse
    • Author by jbrantow (April 30, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
         

      Perhaps it's time to outlaw sex among followers of Pat Robertson so they can't procreate.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
           

        It wouldn't surprise me if progressives tried something like that. It is just another example of progressive thinking . Congratulations.

         

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (April 30, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
             

           

          You're trying waaaay too hard to look stupid.

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by tman418 (May 01, 2009 9:58 pm ET)
             
          It wouldn't surprise me if conservatives would want to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by harley (April 30, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
         

      GOP Hysterical Over Hate Crimes Bill Because It Would Protect Gay People

      REP MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): I feel that this hate crime legislation could be considered the very definition of tyranny.

      REP. GRESHMAN BARRET (R-SC): This bill would inhibit religious freedom in our society -- a scary thought.

      REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): You think a pregnant mother does not deserve the protection of a homosexual? You think a military member doesn't deserve the protection of a transvestite?

      REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): I, Mr. Speaker, oppose and I defy the logic of the people that would advocate for such legislation the very idea we could divine what goes on in the heads of people when they commit crimes.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Leftym0m79 (April 30, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
         
      He totally missed the point of the bill.  Why is it that conservatives always bring out the bestiality argument?  Are they projecting much?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (April 30, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
         

      Good Heavens!!

      We haven't heard from Patty-cake for quite some time.  Apparently, the experimental meds have not worked.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Craig (April 30, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
         
      Sorry, Pat. Pedophiles aren't protected. Ditto duck-diddlers.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
           
        The dems did defeat an amendment to exclude pedophiles from protection. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/684/Pedophiles-to-be-protected-by-federal-hate-crimes-legislation.aspx
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Craig (April 30, 2009 7:46 pm ET)
             
          They defeated an amendment that wasn't needed because the bill offers no protection to pedophiles.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 8:33 pm ET)
               

            Nope, the sponsors of the bill kept it nice and vague. But when the dems had the opportunity to exclude pedophiles from protection they choose not to exclude them. That is tacit protection of them.  Another social advance championed by the dems.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tman418 (April 30, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
                 
              Fairliberal, your source has no credibility.

              1st: It's a right-wing blog site.

              2nd. Your source's source is an article titled "DEMOCRATS DEFINE CHILD MOLESTERS AS GAY" April 28, 2009 www.CatholicLeague.org

              3rd. Bill Donohue, the Catholic League President, the sole source of the source of your source, does not seem like a credible source to me.

              4th. Bill Donohue falsely claimed, in that article, that people engaged in first amendment acts speaking out against homosexuality could be jailed, when the bill specifically protects that.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by fairliberal (April 30, 2009 11:00 pm ET)
                   
                Regardless of which blogsite one picks to show what happened it does not change the fact that the dems defeated an amendmment to exclude pedophiles from exclusion. They were quite clear in excluding veterans, the elderly and pregnant women however.  http://www.cwalac.org/article_852.shtml
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tman418 (April 30, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
                     
                  I'm gonna have to see a much more credible source for that pedophilia amendment, which wouldn't be necessary anyways.

                  As far as pregnant women, the elderly, and veterans go, they are not really hate-crime prone.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by tman418 (April 30, 2009 11:31 pm ET)
                     
                  Can I ask just how pedophiles would be protected from hate crimes? Pedophilia is against the law. Why would you even need an amendment for something like that and how would it be possible to protect them in hate crimes legislation as well as actual law enforcement?

                  Oh, and your Hawaii source also said that Jewish groups were pleased with pedophilia being protected by the hate crimes bill, and still falsely claimed that it inhibits free speech rights.
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 01, 2009 12:10 am ET)
             
          Yet another clear, sad, pathetic example of the right-wing attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.  It's failed.  America is not buying it.  Grow up.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (April 30, 2009 8:53 pm ET)
         

      Given federal and state statuates against pedopfilic behavior, your post seems to want to paint democtrats as pedophile friendly. Bipartian rhetoric much?

      How do you have a conversation with such an accuser?

       

      Report Abuse