If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   You'll never guess which party opposes renewing the Violence Against Women Act   (nytimes.com) divider line 535
    More: Asinine, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, preventive medicines, legal assistance, domestic violence  
•       •       •

8587 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



535 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-15 01:23:42 PM

I Said: I can't wait to hear Romney weigh in on this.


I know me too. Then, after he weighs in, I can't wait to hear Romney weigh in on this.
 
2012-03-15 01:25:03 PM

Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.

You know...politics.

You may now continue with your WARRHGARBL.


They're against the following:

"would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence."

It's not politics to think the GOP is acting like assholes when they act like assholes.
 
2012-03-15 01:25:18 PM

Mentat: Rev.K: SMALL GOVERNMENT!

Abusive man is beating your ass?

THAT'S NOT AMERICA'S PROBLEM!

But try to buy birth control pills and watch how fast the government gets between you and your doctor.


The GOP: Making government small enough to fit in your uterus.
 
2012-03-15 01:25:20 PM

wildcardjack: /Yes, I have a touch of PTSD from that biatch.


I believe your solution is to get the fark out of Texas.

/Only kinda kidding :)
 
2012-03-15 01:25:58 PM

Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.


You mean extending funding to all kinds of domestic violence is now controversial?
 
2012-03-15 01:26:06 PM
Aw crap, I got beaten to the REAL sexist joke twice. Stupid refresh button. .

Already FAILed once by guessing "Lemon Party".

/At least I was close there.
 
2012-03-15 01:26:51 PM

what_now: The Democrats should really start talking about how they want to re-ratify the 19th amendment.


This is oddly the best time in the last 4 years for the dems to start any and all advocacy/protection fights.
 
2012-03-15 01:27:05 PM
In the interest of injecting a little honesty into the debate for those who are already biatching about additions to the bill that are so offensive to the GOP, here is what is being added to the bill:

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

My god, how outrages and political...

It's right in the article, of course, but it seems a number of Farkers weren't able to read that far without vomiting forth some ridiculous suggestions... Like the GOP should add a rider calling for 100% tax cut for wealthy individuals, for instance.
 
2012-03-15 01:27:09 PM
Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

So... domestic violence is okay if it's gays or immigrants?
 
2012-03-15 01:27:27 PM
Violence Against Women is well documented to be healthy for Free Market Economics, and we all know that Free Market Economics are the gut fuel that powers Democracy.

Do your part, citizen. Vote against protecting women from violence and ensure the safety of our glorious Democracy.
 
2012-03-15 01:27:33 PM

Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.


Things like providing domestic violence support to gays and immigrants. I wouldn't call that sneaking in. It's not like putting an oil pipeline in the defense authorization act
 
2012-03-15 01:27:34 PM

Fart_Machine: Xythero: You know, there would be no Republican war on women if there wasn't a giant segment of the American population cheering these bastards on.

It's not a giant segment of the American population as a whole. It's a small but very loud Christian minority within the GOP.


I don't know. They managed to take the House and several state governorships. And I keep hearing they will make gains in the Senate. There are more of them than you give credit.
 
2012-03-15 01:27:35 PM

I Said: I can't wait to hear Romney weigh in on this.

"While i assume this to be another political-minded ploy conjured up by the Democratic Opponent Coalition of Politicians, I have never denied that there is a bad sensation which I receive upon viewing a female gendered human being being struck by a male gendered human being. That is a bad thing, and therefore I will have to *tchk tchk* *ding* agree with the GOP and affirmatively vote against this piece of writing on tree-pulp."

 
2012-03-15 01:27:36 PM

Sybarite: They like their women like they like their chicken.


choked?
 
2012-03-15 01:27:39 PM
So just for the record, the GOP is:

- pro-r4pe
- pro-violence against women
- anti-jobs
- anti-american auto industry
- anti-middle class
- anti-affordable health insurance
- pro-cancer causing frack drilling


Sure sounds like a bunch of people who would be great for running a country. That is, if you wanted that country to fail.
 
2012-03-15 01:27:59 PM

Urbn: I'd actually be fine if this was just a domestic abuse law that covered any partner (straight, gay, male, female, citizen, or noncitizen living/visiting here) who was being battered, but this is not the argument the Republicans are actually making. They think more people should be Excluded, not included.


I would like to see that too. I do understand that the bulk of serious violence may be against women, but it shouldn't be exclusive. I'm not sure what could be done for battered men in the form of real help (are there enough battered men and children in a community to support a shelter?), but I'd at least like to see an information campaign targeted at psychologists, courts, and police.
 
2012-03-15 01:28:16 PM
Because its impossible for the Republican party to support this bill, while offering Amendments that fix/change the party they have issues with.. No they just have to oppose the entire bill and hope for the best.

Fools.
 
2012-03-15 01:28:17 PM

impaler: As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats' timing.

Let's say those dirty democraps are timing this for political purposes. Pray tell how renewing a widely bi-partisan '94 bill, one against domestic abuse, could possibly be political? Explain how one's stance on violence against women is now partisan?


DemocRat Partyists timed the bill to require renewal at the most disadvantageous time for Republicans. It's 100% partisan.
 
2012-03-15 01:28:23 PM

I Said: Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.

You know...politics.

You may now continue with your WARRHGARBL.

They're against the following:

"would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence."

It's not politics to think the GOP is acting like assholes when they act like assholes.


I know most of those things sound reasonable to include, however the headline and 99% of the people in this thread have clearly not read the article. Which is par of the course.
 
2012-03-15 01:29:21 PM
This is really the best time to bring up ALL far right conservative issues, just to make Romney take sides.
 
2012-03-15 01:29:32 PM

Edsel: what_now: Republicans say the measure, under the cloak of battered women, unnecessarily expands immigration avenues by creating new definitions for immigrant victims to claim battery. More important, they say, it fails to put in safeguards to ensure that domestic violence grants are being well spent. It also dilutes the focus on domestic violence by expanding protections to new groups, like same-sex couples, they say.

The GOP is ok with women getting tortured or murdered, as long as some gay and brown people are getting tortured and murdered as well.

This is some seriously high-quality trolling by the Democrats. They get three major demographic groups pissed at the Republicans, all in one little bill!


At this rate the only Rebublicans that will be left will be my uncle David with huge gun collection for shooting cans Africans, Mexicans, Arabicans, and now Femicans and his "room mate" Greg of nearly a quarter century.
 
2012-03-15 01:30:57 PM
I was hoping to click on the link and see DEMOCRATS! just for a change of pace and something different. But alas, I'm disappointed yet again.
 
2012-03-15 01:31:00 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I know this....

It's the Whigs isn't it?




To be fair, it looks like the GOP may end up where the Whigs did after this current generation of greedy, regressive, reactionary geriatrics dies off.

In the age of the internet I don't see them convincing these next few generations of millenials that putting an asprin between your legs will prevent pregnancy.
 
2012-03-15 01:31:05 PM

AmorousRedDragon: what_now: wildcardjack: My ex-wife never got prosecuted for BEATING ME WITH AN OAR.

Did you file assault charges? Because yes. Men get beaten. Not as often, and usually not for a long time, but it does happen.

Only some insecure jackoff would hit back. Plus, they do it because they don't think you'll hit back, they trust your morals over their own! You have the moral highground, at least.

/been there


Wha? Defending yourself from attack makes you an "insecure jackoff" if the assailant is female?

Is this really that freaking hard to figure out...if one person is physically assaulting another person, THEIR RESPECTIVE GENDERS ARE IRRELEVANT. Smacking other people around is not acceptable regardless of whether you're male, female, hermaphroditic, transgendered, or other and suggesting that there's something wrong with a person who defends themselves is just twisted as fark.
 
2012-03-15 01:31:06 PM
Abusive relationships are perfectly acceptable.

Stephanie Meyer told me so.

/hate Twllight with the passion of a thousand suns
 
2012-03-15 01:31:09 PM

Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.

You know...politics.

You may now continue with your WARRHGARBL.


I read the article, and it doesn't seem the Dems are trying to sneak anything in, or even add anything unrelated. As far as adding things like targeting funding toward the demographics most at risk, and expanding the scope to include same sex couples, I think that falls more under just doing the right thing than some sinister plot to make the GOP vote against the bill.
 
2012-03-15 01:31:19 PM
The Right's pathological need to fight over everything is going to do them in.

They could easily let this one go in the Senate, then have the House pass their own bill without the same sex and immigrant provisions. Instead, they're drawing a line in the sand and putting themselves on the "pro-domestic violence" side of that line. Incredible.
 
2012-03-15 01:31:19 PM

Teknowaffle: Sometimes people ask "why did you leave the US"

Everyday the news from America answers the question more and more.


Can I go too?
 
2012-03-15 01:31:34 PM
women, you can't beat em...
 
2012-03-15 01:31:49 PM

aselene: DemocRat Partyists timed the bill to require renewal at the most disadvantageous time for Republicans. It's 100% partisan.


Damn Obama and his blasted time machine!!!
 
2012-03-15 01:32:02 PM
All the stars had a pretty face
Children and Negroes knew their place
Blocks of happy families with moms and dads all in love
Or are these wholesome memories really from reruns on TV and ads in old garage sale magazines?

Jello and Mojo lay down the GOP worldview (new window)
 
2012-03-15 01:32:35 PM

Xythero: They managed to take the House and several state governorships.


If I recall their platform when they accomplished this was on job creation, not barefoot and pregnant. This "culture war" bullshait can hardly help them outside of the Bible Belt which they already had anyway.
 
2012-03-15 01:33:06 PM

aselene: impaler: As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats' timing.

Let's say those dirty democraps are timing this for political purposes. Pray tell how renewing a widely bi-partisan '94 bill, one against domestic abuse, could possibly be political? Explain how one's stance on violence against women is now partisan?

DemocRat Partyists timed the bill to require renewal at the most disadvantageous time for Republicans. It's 100% partisan.


www.the-ppole.com
 
2012-03-15 01:33:11 PM

redqueenmeg: Teknowaffle: Sometimes people ask "why did you leave the US"

Everyday the news from America answers the question more and more.

Can I go too?


Heh. He doesn't even ask where, but wants to go nevertheless. Very telling.
 
2012-03-15 01:33:22 PM

Dog Welder: I know most of those things sound reasonable to include, however the headline and 99% of the people in this thread have clearly not read the article. Which is par of the course.


The headline isn't THAT misleading, at least not at all by fark standards. And besides, the common sentiment here seems to be "the GOP continues its war on women", which I think the article reinforces. Their opposition to adding reasonable protections to the act is certainly well in line with their recent pattern of behavior regarding women. I know that for each individual issue they have reasons for their position, but each position is against women, and their refusal to strongly come out against Limbaugh proves that to them they'd rather allow the perception that they're anti-women to linger than to piss off what they see as their hard-right base.
 
2012-03-15 01:33:39 PM

I Said: Dog Welder: I know reading the article is actually discouraged here, but it's not so much that the GOP is against the act as it against all the stuff the Dems are trying to sneak in there to force the GOP to vote against it.

You know...politics.

You may now continue with your WARRHGARBL.

They're against the following:

"would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence."

It's not politics to think the GOP is acting like assholes when they act like assholes.


Quite frankly, the only thing I have a problem with in that is including stalking as part of violence. Stalking often leads to violence but is itself not violence. It is emotional and psychological terrorism, but it isn't violence per se - especially when compared to everything else in that bill. But I don't have enough of a problem with it that I would wholesale vote against it. I'm sure a case could be made that the inclusion of stalking as a form of violence makes sense, and I just haven't been exposed to it yet.

Everything else in the bill makes perfect sense considering the mission of the VAWA. Expanding services to include more rural areas and including Native American reservations as eligible for services make sense. Get it out there to more people. Including gay couples as eligible makes perfect sense too, and it very much opens the door to discussions about men as victims of domestic violence - which although nowhere near as frequent as women being victims, is still an important aspect to discussions of eliminating domestic violence. Including illegal immigrants and letting them get temporary visas makes sense as well. Illegal immigrant or not, beating your spouse is illegal, and we'd need to let the victim stay around for a few reasons - one to make sure the victim gets the appropriate services necessary, and second to testify in court against the attacker. Additional training for police, lawyers, and judges is ALWAYS a good thing. These things are perfectly sensible.
 
2012-03-15 01:34:00 PM

Headso: women, you can't beat em...


...post old testament.
 
2012-03-15 01:34:09 PM

Anti_illuminati: redqueenmeg: Teknowaffle: Sometimes people ask "why did you leave the US"

Everyday the news from America answers the question more and more.

Can I go too?

Heh. He doesn't even ask where, but wants to go nevertheless. Very telling.


Who he? Oh, you mean me? Crap, forgot I was a dude for a second.

If that's the case, why assume I didn't check Teknowaffle's profile to see where he was?
 
2012-03-15 01:34:21 PM

Anti_illuminati: I was hoping to click on the link and see DEMOCRATS! just for a change of pace and something different. But alas, I'm disappointed yet again.


I actually was too.
 
2012-03-15 01:34:34 PM

natmar_76: Violence Against Women is well documented to be healthy for Free Market Economics, and we all know that Free Market Economics are the gut fuel that powers Democracy.

Do your part, citizen. Vote against protecting women from violence and ensure the safety of our glorious Democracy.


They might as well come out and say "Falcon punch, ho! See, we're not against contraception".
 
2012-03-15 01:35:38 PM

redqueenmeg: Anti_illuminati: redqueenmeg: Teknowaffle: Sometimes people ask "why did you leave the US"

Everyday the news from America answers the question more and more.

Can I go too?

Heh. He doesn't even ask where, but wants to go nevertheless. Very telling.

Who he? Oh, you mean me? Crap, forgot I was a dude for a second.

If that's the case, why assume I didn't check Teknowaffle's profile to see where he was?


You're a Farker, you're no supposed to check the profile unless you disagree with the bastard.
 
2012-03-15 01:35:42 PM

Kome: Quite frankly, the only thing I have a problem with in that is including stalking as part of violence. Stalking often leads to violence but is itself not violence. It is emotional and psychological terrorism, but it isn't violence per se


"Terrorism?" How can men help stalking, when Hollywood tells us stalking always works? Guys who stalk--usually the leading man--get the girls. Pay attention to the movies, man. You might learn something.
 
2012-03-15 01:35:56 PM

aselene: impaler: As suggested by Mr. Sessions, Republicans detect a whiff of politics in the Democrats' timing.

Let's say those dirty democraps are timing this for political purposes. Pray tell how renewing a widely bi-partisan '94 bill, one against domestic abuse, could possibly be political? Explain how one's stance on violence against women is now partisan?

DemocRat Partyists timed the bill to require renewal at the most disadvantageous time for Republicans. It's 100% partisan.


The VAWA expires this year.

Damn those forward-thinking Dems in 1994, 2000, and 2005. They just knew that 2012 would be the perfect year for this bill to come up for renewal again.
 
2012-03-15 01:36:07 PM

James!: sweetmelissa31: Oh my gosh, idea: they should call it the Violence Against Girls act = VAG.

Violence Against Girls, Immigrants, Natives and Gays. VAGINA.


It's still only women right?

Violence Against Girls (Immigrant, Native And Lesbian)

There ya go.
 
2012-03-15 01:36:27 PM

Aidan: Urbn: I'd actually be fine if this was just a domestic abuse law that covered any partner (straight, gay, male, female, citizen, or noncitizen living/visiting here) who was being battered, but this is not the argument the Republicans are actually making. They think more people should be Excluded, not included.

I would like to see that too. I do understand that the bulk of serious violence may be against women, but it shouldn't be exclusive. I'm not sure what could be done for battered men in the form of real help (are there enough battered men and children in a community to support a shelter?), but I'd at least like to see an information campaign targeted at psychologists, courts, and police.


Have you been copying chunks of memory from my partner's brain?

There is a distressing lack of resources available for abused men, along with a lack of societal support. Patriarchy traps men as well, locking us into expectations of being superior and aggressive, ostracizing and isolating those who fail to meet those unreasonable, irrational, and unfair expectations. Smashing patriarchy will help abused men achieve visibility and support alongside abused women, who also still suffer from a lack of resources and supports - not that a lot isn't devoted to helping people escape and recover from domestic violence, but that the problem is so widespread and often suppressed that even the existing resources are woefully inadequate, for everyone.
 
2012-03-15 01:36:34 PM

Kome: Quite frankly, the only thing I have a problem with in that is including stalking as part of violence. Stalking often leads to violence but is itself not violence. It is emotional and psychological terrorism, but it isn't violence per se - especially when compared to everything else in that bill. But I don't have enough of a problem with it that I would wholesale vote against it. I'm sure a case could be made that the inclusion of stalking as a form of violence makes sense, and I just haven't been exposed to it yet.


I'm with you on this, but as Roy Blunt said in the article: if you disagree with the ball at all or in part, put forward a proposal. Don't just say "NO!". Show that you put thought into a bill that protects against domestic violence and improve upon it.
 
2012-03-15 01:36:55 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I'm kidding. You sound like a guy who got attacked by a psycho hose beast. Glad you survived.


Where is that from, pop culture? The girlfriend I had before my wife still to this day well over a decade later is called that by me and my friends when reminiscing. For the life of me I cannot remember how we came up with that.

/yes, she was a redhead... why do you ask?
 
2012-03-15 01:36:57 PM
Have they forgotten how flat-out farking vindictive we women can be?
 
2012-03-15 01:37:03 PM

Anti_illuminati: redqueenmeg: Anti_illuminati: redqueenmeg: Teknowaffle: Sometimes people ask "why did you leave the US"

Everyday the news from America answers the question more and more.

Can I go too?

Heh. He doesn't even ask where, but wants to go nevertheless. Very telling.

Who he? Oh, you mean me? Crap, forgot I was a dude for a second.

If that's the case, why assume I didn't check Teknowaffle's profile to see where he was?

You're a Farker, you're no supposed to check the profile unless you disagree with the bastard.


I'm a Liter... and a chick... I can't be expected to understand the rules.
 
2012-03-15 01:37:10 PM
I propose a bill that exempts the 1% of all of their current tax obligations, and call it the "If You Don't Vote For This You Hate Women, Children, Minorities, and Christians" Act.
 
Displayed 50 of 535 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report