TPMDC

Debating Hate Crimes, Gohmert Rambles On About Bestiality, Sex With Corpses, Voting For A Black Man

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!

Read More

GOP, Louie Gohmert

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

See it to believe it - here's Rep. Louie Gohmert, on the House floor yesterday, offering his assessment of the "wide open" definition of sexual orientation.

Gohmert (R-TX) rambles about being "oriented toward animals, bestiality" ... "oriented toward corpses, toward children."

"There are all kinds of perversions, what most of us would call perversions, some would say it sounds like fun, but most of us would say were perversions and there have been laws against them," said Gohmert, last known for holding the "What bill" sign during President Obama's September speech to a joint session of Congress.

This was during a debate that started about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and then veered into a debate on hate crimes.

Watch our clip to the end, when Gohmert talks about racism and tells his colleagues he voted for Alan Keyes.

DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan quipped, "It looks like Rick Santorum just picked up his first endorsement of 2012."

Join the Conversation!

63 comments

Recommend Recommend (2)

October 7, 2009 6:35 PM   

You know, after what Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum, if my name was as distinctive as "Gohmert," I'd probably keep my mouth shut about this kind of thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:37 PM    in reply to Connor

I still have to snicker when I hear "santorum".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 8:35 PM    in reply to Connor

Rush Limbaugh deals with people he doesn't like by mispronouncing their names, doing snide voice characterizations. It's an easy way to get attention or a laugh from other small minds.

Let's pillory the representative because of his foolish actions and not by his name. Rise above what the Other Ones do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 6:49 PM   

"There are all kinds of perversions, what most of us would call perversions, some would say it sounds like fun, but most of us would say were perversions and there have been laws against them."

Someone check his browser history. Sounds like he's done some "research".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:07 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

re: some would say it sounds like fun. yeesh. talk about projection in the clinical sense. this guy has a lot in his closet, that's for sure. and he's such a liar saying he thought Keyes would have made a great president in '96. he thought no such thing

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:22 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Watch his body language too, especially his eyes, there seems to be a mix of shame and excitement when rattling off some of these things "perversions".

This is also a striking admission: "If you question our President BECAUSE (emphasis is mine) he happens to be black, that Gee, you must be a racist..."
Well, yea, you must be a racist if you question the President BECAUSE of the color of his skin. That's pretty much the definition of racism.

Also, listen to the way he says "most of us" and gestures to the audience. Most of who? The House? Interesting...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:37 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

One related note. Because is a VERY strong word in our vocabulary and should not be ignored in this context.

Quoting and paraphrasing from page 4 of INFLUENCE: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert Cialdini PhD, this study was originally conducted by Ellen Langer at Harvard:

"People simply like to have reasons for what they do. Langer demonstrated this unsurprising fact by asking a small favor of people waiting in line to use a library copying machine."

The request "Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?" yielded 60% compliance of the person letting the researcher cut in line.

"Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I'm in a rush?" yielded an almost total compliance of 94%!

This appears to be because a reason was provided, so to be sure the researcher tried a third phrase merely restating the obvious...

"Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies." May seem ridiculous but this yielded a 93% compliance!

It wasn't the actual reason after all, but simply the existence of the word BECAUSE which made the request seem more reasoned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:48 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

I'm by no means a supporter of Republican insanity, though you could also read his statement thusly; (gramatical changes added)

"If you question our President, because he happens to be black, that Gee, you must be a racist..."

See how it could work? Notwithstanding that he didn't pause before saying 'because', I'd atribute that to his yoekel southern accent and intellect.

However it is a valid point insofar that due to the Prez's colour, it makes critism a little more difficult. In my opinion, there's little negative criticism that he ought to attract. He's doing a terrific job thus far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:08 PM   

Can't wait for Goober, Otis and Ernest T. Bass to weigh in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:15 PM   

He is absolutely right, to discriminate against somebody for being attracted to animals or corpses is wrong and should be illegal. The difference between homosexuality and bestiality or necrophilia (other than the mental health implications) is that homosexuality is legal and protected where as sex with animals and corpses is not.

We have legal restrictions on actions not thoughts or feelings. And to legally restrict the military service of individuals with certain feelings who are legally allowed to act on those feelings is just ludicrous. While we are imposing the morality of the few on our troops, why not kick out soldiers who enjoy porn? Or who like blackberry pie?

And how is removing discriminatory policies towards homosexuals similar to Hitler? Hitler discriminated against homosexuals, does Gohmert want us to be like Hitler or not?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:26 PM    in reply to Stiggs

The difference between homosexuality and bestiality or necrophilia (other than the mental health implications) is that homosexuality is legal and protected where as sex with animals and corpses is not

Ummmmmmm. I'd argue that you're wrong - that homosexuality is legal and the others aren't is NOT the difference. The difference is that homosexuality is NOT a perversion. It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a lifestyle. It's not a choice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:50 PM    in reply to tctundra

You highlight the mental health implications which I chose to ignore.

I was interested in highlighting the legal absurdities of his argument. While you and I can be in agreement over the distinction between homosexuality and bestiality, Gohmert is arguing that the two are indistinguishable. My point was that there is an excellent legal distinction between homosexuality and bestiality - which is one is illegal and the other is not. Making it illegal to discriminate based on orientation does not change the legal status of either having sex with someone of your gender or having sex with a goat (of either gender). And last time I checked, there were legal provisions allowing the military to kick out soldiers for breaking the law (though I am not a military law scholar so I don't know if having sex with a goat would qualify).

The other point I was making is the distinction between wanting to engage in a particular sexual act and actually engaging in it. I think kicking soldiers out of the army for having the urge to have sex with a goat but refraining is lunacy. What if a soldier wants to smoke dope or hand out bibles to civilians but refrains, should we kick that soldier out too? What is particularly absurd about DADT is that it makes homosexuality a punishable thought crime despite the fact that the actual act is technically legal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 11:36 PM    in reply to Stiggs

Okay Gohmart is a Gomer

But the argument from legality fails because homosexual acts were not always legal everywhere in the US prior to 2003 and were illegal nationally until (wiki reports) 1982. That fact does not in itself self-justify anti-homosexual laws, the demands to overturn them derived from more fundamental concepts of human rights.

The idea that laws are self-validating is a very dangerous one, it would suggest that rights lost could never be regained. DADT is perfectly legal that doesn't make it right.

The argument against Gomer Gohmart is better fought on the issue of consent than prior law.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 9:34 PM    in reply to Bruce Webb

I'm not arguing that because something is legal it is okay (or the converse). What I'm saying is that it is legal so arguing that it should be legal is a little moot. Particularly when you are arguing against somebody (Gohmert) who isn't saying that it shouldn't be legal.

Gohmert is saying that repealing DADT will legalize bestiality. It won't. Somebody needs to explain that to him so that we can move on. Also, somebody needs to explain to him that if you have to point out that you know black people in order to prove you aren't racist then you are almost guaranteed to be a racist. Actually, he needs a lot of things explained to him.

And a final, deep thought: would having sex with a goat get you kicked out of the military? Where would one find such information? Because if not then somebody needs to explain that to Gohmert as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:05 PM    in reply to Stiggs

There's this crazy thing called CONSENT.

The difference between homosexuality and bestiality/necrophilia is that the "victim" in those cases is incapable of consent. That's the reason it is and should be a crime while consensual homosexual sex should not be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 10:19 PM    in reply to drhgl19

The trap that Ghomert is setting and that both you and tctundra above have fallen into is turning this into a referendum on homosexuality. Repealing DADT isn't about whether or not homosexuality is legal or moral but whether or not the military should be allowed to discriminate against people for having feelings which are legal to act upon. Once you think about things in those terms, it is very difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than DADT needs to be repealed.

The reason why the right's argument against homosexuals serving in the military (and really so many issues) is so successful is because republicans have reduced it to a question of emotion. Gohmert is falling back on a fear - the fear that repealing DADT will make bestiality and necrophilia legally protected and impossible to prosecute. Arguing that homosexuality is different than bestiality or necrophilia is to lose the fight, Gohmert isn't arguing that they are the same but that one event will lead to another. They way to combat his argument is to point out how his logic is faulty and that is not that a equals b but that a leads to b.

The right argues that the left needs to follow the constitution and simultaneously that they answer to a "higher" law. This is what the separation of church and state was supposed to prevent. By allowing the GOP to reduce every piece of legislation concerning homosexuality to a referendum on homosexuality is to let them hamstring progress. The legal status of homosexuality is settled, now it is a matter of following that law.

Is Gohmert suggesting that we should legalize bestiality? Or make homosexuality illegal? Because this legislation addresses neither issue, so what the hell is he talking about?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 11:55 PM    in reply to Stiggs

Your argument is circular. Dred Scot was settled law. As was Plessy v Ferguson close to 50 years later. And it took more than sixty years before One Man, One Vote became the law of the land. Making the argument from legality rather than from human rights is the wrong path. "my conduct is legal, your's is not" was what prevented progress to social justice for decades.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 9:28 PM    in reply to Bruce Webb

My argument is not circular. What Gohmert is saying is that by repealing DADT we will be legalizing bestiality. If what he is saying is true then congress should find a way to both allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military and keep bestiality illegal. Fortunately, what he is saying is bullshit and needs to be pointed out as such.

This is not an argument about whether or not people should be allowed to have sex with those of the same gender, that argument has been fought and won. But we are currently faced with the problem that while you are allowed to have homosexual sex, in the military you aren't allowed to be gay while you are doing it. The act is legal but the desire to engage in the act will get you booted out of the armed forces.

To be arguing that homosexuality is okay is to miss the point. It's kind of like arguing that women should be allowed to vote or that slavery should be abolished. I'm right there with you but we're a little late to those particular parties.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:20 PM   

"Racist? I'm not racist! Hell, I voted for Alan Keyes 13 years ago. I couldn't tell my friends (especially Senater Gramm) because THEY are racist. But I'm not. I mean jeez - I like Mr. Keyes. He's very ARTICULATE."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:25 PM    in reply to tctundra

he didn't really vote for him. he just wanted to say he had a black friend and keyes was the only repug he could think of having had a chance to vote for

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:46 PM    in reply to tctundra

Articulate and clean are the 2 favorite "positive" qualities they hold out for black politicians. I seem to remember almost the exact same thing said about Obama early in the race.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:38 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

by no less than Joe Biden, in fact.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:42 PM    in reply to cole_dranx

whom i don't lump into crazy camp with Gomer here.
but those were Biden's words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:29 PM   

I consider myself pretty open-minded, but voting for Alan Keyes? That's just sick.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:37 PM   

Very funny tctundra.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:41 PM   

"When you lose morality in a nation, you create economic instability leading to economic chaos."

So Bush caused the recession through immorality? Hoover as well? Clinton presided over a period of unheralded moral growth?

It's pretty telling when a political movement shamelessly uses the words they claim to value the highest ("morality", "honor","respect" especially "respect for the Commander in Chief" ) while openly refusing to live to any of them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:44 PM    in reply to Bullsmith

Well, I'd say you could make a good case that Bush was in fact pretty damn immoral. What else do you call tens upon thousands of unnecessary deaths in the Middle East?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:43 PM   

Some people are just weird. Unfortunately politicians must write common sense into law.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:49 PM   

Damn those Republicans have some HOT fantasies

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:49 PM   

I like how he quotes Watergate felon and christian prison radio host Chuck Colson. He's appealing to a rather thin demographic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:54 PM    in reply to Yail Bloor

**That got me too. He cites his "high morality," after bringing up his buddies Chuck Colson (convicted felon) and Alan Keyes (batshit birther). Jeeeeeeze, What a gohmert.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 7:52 PM   

They really don't grasp the concept of consenting adults, do they? The reason homosexuality should not be illegal and should not be discriminated against is because it involves the activities of people able to make choices about what they want.

Bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia all involve acts with someone or something that can't physically and/or legally give consent. No consent, no good.

It seems so freakin' simple, and yet, in this guy's mind, it's all the same. Makes me sorry for his wife.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:07 PM    in reply to Phoebe Fay

Exactly- it is astonishing to me how rarely this point (the most salient one on the entire issue) is made.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:06 PM   

This is just another example of how the fevered brains of conservatives work. The demons they fight are in their own heads.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:13 PM   

How do these guys know so much about necrophilia and bestiality?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:45 PM    in reply to traitorjoe

Great question. As the saying goes, "takes one to know one."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:39 PM   

Another clip for the "Make The GOP Own the Crazy in 2010" file.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 8:47 PM   

"There are all kinds of perversions, what most of us would call perversions, some would say it sounds like fun," said Gohmert. "Like kissing goats. Some goats are good kissers, some ain't, but either way, it's fun."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:23 PM   

Is there really an unlimited supply of bat shit crazy Republicans? There just seems to be a new one I've never heard of popping up about every other day. Does anyone keep track of them all? Ankle bracelets, maybe?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:36 PM   

So non-discrimination of gay people leads to beastiality and Nazism in Gomhert world?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 9:58 PM   

Wow, I am just reminded of Keenan Wynn in "Dr. Stranglove," who continually called Peter Sellers' British officer a "prevert" who committed "preversions."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 10:25 PM   

I am not an expert on this---truly. However, I do recall reading that necrophilia is extremely rare behavior, and is usually accompanied by severe psychosis, hallucinations, and other signs of severe mental illness. I am not sure why this gets mentioned as a "sexual orientation" since there is absolutely no evidence that it is one.

Similarly, bestiality does not appear to be a "sexual orientation". Again, I am no expert, but there doesn't appear to be even one documented case of a human being who falls in love with an animal and wants to be in a lifelong committed relationship with that animal as his spouse, with shared responsibilities. Lots of people love their pets, but that's not the same thing.

Sexual behavior isn't an orientation. Portnoy wasn't in love with calve's liver, no matter how many times he...well, you remember.

It is beyond insulting to pretend that any of these things is even remotely connected to two people who fall in love, and live in a lifelong committed relationship, with shared mortgage, bills, medical, legal and financial decisions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 10:21 AM    in reply to Linguist

Actually, there is a sexual preference for animals; it's called zoophilia, and it's ranked among the paraphilias like necrophilia and pedophilia. Homosexuality was considered a paraphilia until the early 1970s. Now it's not, but that's a change in society, not a change in the psychology.

There are many documented cases of zoophiles in committed relationships with animals. I'll let you google on your own. Start with "mark matthews the horseman".

So yes, the repubs have a point that acceptance of homosexuality might lead to a slippery slope. There are zoophiles who would love to win acceptance, and would try to use homosexuals as a leading drive toward that goal. But legally it is very easy to distinguish the practices. Just because a slippery slope is possible does not mean it will happen, and it's not a good reason for denying homosexuals equal rights.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 12:05 PM    in reply to Remus Shepherd

There is no slope. There is no point. No one is taking those people seriously. If you've ever taken a logic course you'd know that a fallacy denies the validity of the argument. Although slippery slope (butterfly flapped it's wings and shifted trade winds and created a tsunami), ad hominim (personal attacks), and straw man arguments (death panels), seem to be the top 3 in politics now. But all 3 make arguments logically invalid.

You're also ignoring the fact that homosexual intercourse is completely consensual by legal adults, and if it's not, it's rape and should be treated no differently in court.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 12:58 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

You're missing the point. As, I think, are most people here.

There *is* a fringe element who will strive for legalization of zoophilia and pedophilia and whatnot. Whether or not their their goals are valid (they are not) is not the issue. The issue is that Republicans are scared of it. That fringe element of sexual deviants is real, it exists, Republicans know it, and they are using them as an excuse to deny homosexual rights.

The issues are connected. We should accept those connections and draw a clear line in the law between what is allowable and what is not allowable. We should *not* deny that the fringe exists, or that there are no connections between them and the causes for which we believe. The reality is that there is a fringe and there are logical connections between homosexuality and that fringe. Let's not give up being a reality-based community; let's accept the reality and deal with it honestly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 3:41 PM    in reply to Remus Shepherd

I did not deny the existence of the fringe. I said no one is taking them seriously. The simple fact that we have a name for the perversion is proof enough. In fact, go pick up a DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Health Disorders) and you can read about all sorts of "fringes".

I challenge you to explain how homosexuality leads to this, which seems to be what you're arguing. The fringe would argue that consensual heterosexual sex is reason enough that they should be able to openly carry out their fantasies. That doesn't give those fringe groups any more credence.

There is NO SLOPE and NO LOGICAL CONNECTION. As I said in the previous post, it's 100% impossible to have a logical connection built upon a straw man argument.

Argue the facts, not the straw men. You still have not said anything about the consensual argument. Animals, corpses, and children (legally), can not give reasonable consent to the act. 2 (or more) legal adults can.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 10:52 PM   

Prsident Alan Keyes. Wow. Vice President Phil Gramm. Wow. Press Secretary Michael Savage. Wow. Let's go do a heifer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 11:00 PM   

Is he Cletus Spuckler's cousin?
And by he way, Gomer, the man with the little mustache hated gay people too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 11:09 PM   

Dang, I have a crappy, ineffective Congressman, but I am thankful and don't live just one county to the east or one county to the south and have this Gohmert (to borrow the pejorative coined by greylox above) as my Congresscritter!

I hadn't really given the framing argument described above by Stiggs, but it may provide the best way to turn it back on the bigots: "Repealing DADT isn't about whether or not homosexuality is legal or moral but whether or not the military should be allowed to discriminate against people for having feelings which are legal to act upon. Once you think about things in those terms, it is very difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than DADT needs to be repealed." At least it should provide another argument in the arsenal of those having to confront those who argue the slippery slope from homosexuality to bestiality and necrophilia to . . . Hitler, that famous proponent of homosexual rights? (Hey, Gohmert is a(n east Texas) Republican, he don't need no stinkin' logic or rational thought process!)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 7, 2009 11:21 PM   

Speaking of Texas, I wish TPM would dig up the muck on "fairy Perry",
rumored to have been caught by his wife, who has since been paid off.

In Austin, we have Dogget; 'course he got tea-bagged. Texas is an
embarassment sometimes.

The people in charge of edumacation here believe the Earth is 4,000
years old. Sigh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 12:32 AM   

Agreed. We need TPM to do some major muckraking in Texas.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 12:36 AM   

Looks like Louie Gohmert had a drink or two too many at dinner.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 1:36 AM   

I can't decide which is more offensive: his comparison of gays to necrophiliacs and pedophiles, or his citing of Chuck Colson on the subject of morality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 2:28 AM   

How many Fox talking points can this guy possibly include in one brief clip? I loved the reference to "Our friend, Chuck Coulson." Now there's a great moral leader if there ever was one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 7:37 AM   

And what was the issue they were supposed to be on??? The idle brain of this guy sure wanders into dark corners. Did he lose his talking points script from Rush?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 9:11 AM   

Seems The Family, in closing C Street, has left Louie homeless, as well as brainless. It must be he's missing all his man-pals from the prayer cell, admitting in public to Alan Keys love and extolling the terrors of sexually orientated induced economic instability. Poor lil' guy is lost.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 9:33 AM   

I had a feeling that there was at least one necrophiliac in the Republican party and this clown looks like he could be it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 11:09 AM   

2 points:

1. He says "...If you question our President because he happens to be black that Gee you must be a racist..." That doesn't make any sense "he happens to be" and "because" in that sentence are contradictory. It would be like me saying "I showed up here accidentally on purpose!"

2. The difference between homosexuality and (bestiality / necrophilia / pedophilia / whatever) is that homosexuality involves only adult human beings with rights that are accepted as being inalienable. No other category of partner meets that standard. We ought to recognize the spiritual bond that two gay people share as just as deserving of social sanctification (in terms of rights and privileges) as any similar spiritual bond amongst heterosexuals. How is that even controversial unless you're blatantly dishonest? (Maybe the reason some Republicans are so eager to have a blastocyst categorized as a human being is that they want children categorized as adults... ew. Creepy right-wingers...)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 11:54 AM   

The stupidest thing about homophobes like Gohmert is that they think gay sex is the same as all forms of non-consensual sex (e.g., pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, etc). Now, gays deserve the same civil and legal rights as everyone else, but NO ONE is suggesting that we legalize having sex with children, corpses or animals. From where Gohmert and others of his simpleminded ilk get their ideas we can only speculate. However, it seems likely they come from some secret store of perverted fantasy that periodically wells to the surface without their control, and speeches like this are one way they try to channel their dark impulses into a socially-acceptable form of expression.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 3:07 PM   

Hasn't anyone noticed what he said about "loss of morality in a nation" leading directly to "economic chaos?"

There are two ways to interpret that. Either it means that the morality which has been lost is financial ethics (which actually makes sense, but is not what he's addressing), or it is some personal religious belief that his god will financially reward those who follow his idea of sexual morality and will financially punish those who violate it. So he seems to have simply slipped some theology (Calvinist? Something straight from Deuteronomy?) into his stated assumptions about how the world works.

But then he gets stranger, because he says in the same sentence, "and when you have economic chaos it is tragic but people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms, in order to gain economic stability. "

If you actually think about what he just said, it seems he's saying that people have been willing to give up their freedoms to do "evil" in order to avoid the financial consequences of that evil. If economic chaos is the result of sexual immorality, and cure for it is giving up freedoms to gain economic stability, and he's using Hitler as his example of the result of that kind of trade-off, then what he's saying about his own preference for forcing sexual morality on other people - constricting their freedoms, "giving up liberty for financial stability" is that he's on the side of Hitler. Or he's saying that if you're not willing to risk a Hitler, you should not vote to restrict people's freedoms even if their sexual perversions lead to economic chaos.

Got that?

Whew!

Here's the way it reads, as I simply transcribed from the video:


"I go back to what a friend Chuck Coleson had pointed out earlier this year and that is when you lose morality in a nation, you create economic instability leading to economic chaos, and when you have economic chaos it is tragic but people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms, in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920s and 30s Germany. They gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache -- who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 3:12 PM   

aren't most crimes 'hate crimes'? a group of black teens just beat to death another black teen in chicago. they hated him because he was in the national honor society. gays kill other gays, is that a hate crime? you have to hate to kill. it seems to me the only ones who ever get charged with 'hate crimes' are straight white males. some 10 years or so ago, two white males in texas chained a black man behind their truck and dragged him till he was dead. they were tried and found guilty, they were executed. the left was upset that they were also not charged with a hate crime. THEY WERE EXECUTED. it seems that was not enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 5:45 PM    in reply to jjdjjd

I've had a change in heart over the hate crime thing in the last couple of years.

Mostly I have come to understand that the point of hate crime laws is that they are anti-terrorism laws. The black teens didn't commit the crime to "send a message" and keep blacks out of their neighborhood.

The TX boys got the maximum punishment, but the goals of sentencing are threefold:

-Punish the criminal.
-Protect Society.
-Make an example the deters other would-be criminals.

So even though they got the maximum possible punishment, The fact that it wasn't prosecuted as a hate crime means that no message was sent that it isn't OK with society to kill someone just because you hate blacks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 8, 2009 6:44 PM   

the black teens murdered another black teen because he was in the NHA, a clear message to other NHA members. as for the guys in texas i think the execution of them says it all. if 2 black guys in texas did it to a white would it be prosecuted as a hate crime? wouldn't they be just as dead either way? if 2 gays kill a straight would it be a hate crime?there are some pretty radical gays out there. sorry, i think all crime is, at its core, hateful. whether you are bernie madoff ripping off investors, or 2 white guys in texas murdering a black man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on