mod3072: F*ck you Congress. Seriously. And I do mean all of you. You've taken a good thing, a thing that pretty much everyone in America can get behind, and turned it into another political boondoggle. F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait. You're all a bunch of worthless, spineless, corrupt, greedy, bought-and-paid-for assholes who only care about personal gain and gaining/keeping power for your utterly corrupt party. If you all died tomorrow from some horribly painful disease of the genitals, I would not be able to refrain myself from dancing a jig of glee.

Let me say this as nicely as I can. Fark you asshole. The language the Democrats put it protects people who need that protection. I'm glad the Democrats aren't farking giving in to the Republicans neanderthal thinking and watering down the bill to appease their backwardness.

namegoeshere: We should also keep in mind other things that kill women, like "back alley" abortions.

My mother hated the whole idea of abortion. It bothered her tremendously. And she was very vocally pro choice. Because she had worked as an ER nurse in a low income area when abortion was illegal, and saw what happened when women had illegal abortions.

My grandfather was a doctor and medical school teacher, and he was pro-choice for exactly that reason, too.

The VAWA needs to be defeated as it is a piece of shiat and violates the rights of ALL Americans. The bill would eliminate the presumption of innocence in sexual harassment and assault cases by instead using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard that defines as guilty people who are as little as 50.001 percent likely to have committed the offense. This is legally baseless, and not supported by either the Title IX statute or federal court rulings dealing with sexual harassment.

It is amazing that saying men have constitutional rights equal to women is somehow a "war on women". Liberal logic never ceases to amaze me though.

"Sen. Chuck Grassley has accused Democrats of adding specialized provisions...to make Republicans look pro-domestic violence."

He knows exactly what kind of tactics his party uses, so he just accuses the other party of using the same tactics. "The Keep Violent Criminals In Jail So They Won't Kidnap, Rape and Murder Your Women Act" or the "True Patriots Know That Saddam Hussein Was the Greatest Threat We Ever Faced Act" or the "So-Called Rights to Privacy Are Unimportant Compared to Keep America Safe Support the Troops Remember the Heroes Act."

namegoeshere: mrshowrules: odinsposse: But it's not a War on Women. It's just a widespread systematic removal of legal protections and rights. That's really a war on men when you think about it.

It is most accurately a concerted attack on women's reproductive rights. By extension, on their equality and sexual freedom. I think it would be fair to call it a war or women's equality. That is serious enough and if that doesn't piss people off on its own merits, you have a bigger problem.

Calling it "a war on women" is inaccurate, unnecessary and not helpful. There are places in the world where women are murdered based on politics. We should keep that in mind.

We should also keep in mind other things that kill women, like "back alley" abortions.

My mother hated the whole idea of abortion. It bothered her tremendously. And she was very vocally pro choice. Because she had worked as an ER nurse in a low income area when abortion was illegal, and saw what happened when women had illegal abortions.

That's me. I hate the whole idea and reality of abortion.

Banning it though leads to so many more problems. That's why I want to see comprehensive sex education, freely available birth control, and for God's sake, can we stop treating sex like it is something dirty and something to be ashamed of?

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Shostie: I'm outraged at all of you for unspecified reasons.

I'M OUTRAGED AT YOUR OUTRAGE! I"M SO OUTRAGED, IT MAKES ME WANT TO STRANGLE A MANATEE IN THE NUDE!

It's occasionally scary how relevant Bloom County still is some 30 years later.

/esspecially where Iran is concerned
//by this point, Steve Dallas would likely be a high-ranking Republican politician
///or talk radio host...

what_now: Show me what's so horrible that the GOP can't possibly vote for it.

"Sponsored by [name of Democrat here]"

mod3072: F*ck you Congress. Seriously. And I do mean all of you. You've taken a good thing, a thing that pretty much everyone in America can get behind, and turned it into another political boondoggle. F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait. You're all a bunch of worthless, spineless, corrupt, greedy, bought-and-paid-for assholes who only care about personal gain and gaining/keeping power for your utterly corrupt party. If you all died tomorrow from some horribly painful disease of the genitals, I would not be able to refrain myself from dancing a jig of glee.

Sometimes there are instances where this happens, and I might agree with you...however, this isn't a cause of the Democrats just adding random fluff to annoy the Republicans into objecting.

The additions make the bill more applicable to current society. It isn't the Democrats' fault that Republicans hate gay people with so much of a passion they have to toss women under the bus to prevent them from receiving equal treatment.

mod3072: F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait.

"Goddamn democrats trying to extend domestic abuse protections to homosexuals and native American women! You should ignore those groups because Republicans don't like them!"

Do you see why that's so farking stupid?

So, Congressman, did you stop beating your wife?

Philip Francis Queeg: mod3072: F*ck you Congress. Seriously. And I do mean all of you. You've taken a good thing, a thing that pretty much everyone in America can get behind, and turned it into another political boondoggle. F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait. You're all a bunch of worthless, spineless, corrupt, greedy, bought-and-paid-for assholes who only care about personal gain and gaining/keeping power for your utterly corrupt party. If you all died tomorrow from some horribly painful disease of the genitals, I would not be able to refrain myself from dancing a jig of glee.

Let me say this as nicely as I can. Fark you asshole. The language the Democrats put it protects people who need that protection. I'm glad the Democrats aren't farking giving in to the Republicans neanderthal thinking and watering down the bill to appease their backwardness.

How about f*ck you? The Republicans are on the wrong side of this, as usual, but that doesn't leave the Democrats blameless. This comes up every year without controversy, and suddenly in an election year with the most hyper-partisan congress in history, the Dems decide to add more protections? I'm not saying I'm against those added protections or that they aren't important, but to bury your head in the sand and claim that the D's are doing it for purely benevolent reasons is naive. Why didn't they add these things last time this bill came up if they're so important? How about the time before? They're adding them now because it is politically expedient. Go ahead and cheerlead for your team if you want to. They don't give a f*ck about you. It's all about votes. Boehner and Pelosi just slapped their dicks on the table to see who's is bigger and, as usual, innocent people are probably going to get hurt in the measuring. I'm not against added protections for gay/lesbian couples or immigrants who are being abused. However, if in the process of trying to extend protections to one group they end up tanking a program that is already helping people, it's still a net loss for society.

mod3072: Philip Francis Queeg: mod3072: F*ck you Congress. Seriously. And I do mean all of you. You've taken a good thing, a thing that pretty much everyone in America can get behind, and turned it into another political boondoggle. F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait. You're all a bunch of worthless, spineless, corrupt, greedy, bought-and-paid-for assholes who only care about personal gain and gaining/keeping power for your utterly corrupt party. If you all died tomorrow from some horribly painful disease of the genitals, I would not be able to refrain myself from dancing a jig of glee.

Let me say this as nicely as I can. Fark you asshole. The language the Democrats put it protects people who need that protection. I'm glad the Democrats aren't farking giving in to the Republicans neanderthal thinking and watering down the bill to appease their backwardness.

How about f*ck you? The Republicans are on the wrong side of this, as usual, but that doesn't leave the Democrats blameless. This comes up every year without controversy, and suddenly in an election year with the most hyper-partisan congress in history, the Dems decide to add more protections? I'm not saying I'm against those added protections or that they aren't important, but to bury your head in the sand and claim that the D's are doing it for purely benevolent reasons is naive. Why didn't they add these things last time this bill came up if they're so important? How about the time before? They're adding them now because it is politically expedient. Go ahead and cheerlead for your team if you want to. They don't give a f*ck about you. It's all about votes. Boehner and Pelosi just slapped their dicks on the table to see who's is bigger and, as usual, innocent people are probably going to get hurt in the measuring. I'm not against added protections for gay/lesbian couples or ...

You're an idiot.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: mod3072: The Republicans are on the wrong side of this, as usual, but that doesn't leave the Democrats blameless. This comes up every year without controversy, and suddenly in an election year with the most hyper-partisan congress in history, the Dems decide to add more protections?

How DARE they improve something, knowing full well that Republicans have signed a suicide-pact to destroy everything they can before they are hurled out of office! How rude of them! Why can't they just let Republicans ruin the country and not make a fuss about it???

Also this was a standard re-authorization of the act. The opportunity to add new provisions is one of the reasons why we have to reauthorize laws anyway.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: mod3072: The Republicans are on the wrong side of this, as usual, but that doesn't leave the Democrats blameless. This comes up every year without controversy, and suddenly in an election year with the most hyper-partisan congress in history, the Dems decide to add more protections?

How DARE they improve something, knowing full well that Republicans have signed a suicide-pact to destroy everything they can before they are hurled out of office! How rude of them! Why can't they just let Republicans ruin the country and not make a fuss about it???

It's literally gotten to the point where any legislative action by Democrats counts as trolling and trapping Republicans.

PonceAlyosha: mod3072: F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait.

"Goddamn democrats trying to extend domestic abuse protections to homosexuals and native American women! You should ignore those groups because Republicans don't like them!"

Do you see why that's so farking stupid?

I never once said I agree with the Republican's position. I'm saying the D's are using a politically convenient time to intentionally provoke the R-tards over a bill that should be a slam-dunk. Did homosexuals and Native American women just start getting abused recently? This really hasn't been an issue until a few months before a hotly contested election where social issues are getting first billing? Do you really believe this is more about helping people than scoring political points, and the timing is just purely coincidental?

I'll say it one more time as clearly as I can for everyone in the thread who seems to be missing the point: I do NOT agree with the Republican position on this. However, the D's have intentionally backed them into a corner by pushing issues that they know the frothy fundies will be up in arms about, and they're using battered women to score political points in an election year. How noble of them.

mod3072: How about f*ck you? The Republicans are on the wrong side of this, as usual, but that doesn't leave the Democrats blameless. This comes up every year without controversy, and suddenly in an election year with the most hyper-partisan congress in history, the Dems decide to add more protections? I'm not saying I'm against those added protections or that they aren't important, but to bury your head in the sand and claim that the D's are doing it for purely benevolent reasons is naive. Why didn't they add these things last time this bill came up if they're so important? How about the time before? They're adding them now because it is politically expedient. Go ahead and cheerlead for your team if you want to. They don't give a f*ck about you. It's all about votes. Boehner and Pelosi just slapped their dicks on the table to see who's is bigger and, as usual, innocent people are probably going to get hurt in the measuring. I'm not against added protections for gay/lesbian couples or immigrants who are being abused. However, if in the process of trying to extend protections to one group they end up tanking a program that is already helping people, it's still a net loss for society.

Son being an uninformed asshole is no way to go through life. This bill doesn't come up every year. It was last renewed in 2005.

mod3072: This comes up every year without controversy,

No, it does not.

"VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. [It] will be up for reauthorization in 2012." Link (new window)

A more suspicious person than I might note that it was the GOP who controlled Congress in 2005, and thus were the ones with the most power to set the new interestingly-timed expiration date.

lordaction: The VAWA needs to be defeated as it is a piece of shiat and violates the rights of ALL Americans. The bill would eliminate the presumption of innocence in sexual harassment and assault cases by instead using a "preponderance of the evidence" standard that defines as guilty people who are as little as 50.001 percent likely to have committed the offense. This is legally baseless, and not supported by either the Title IX statute or federal court rulings dealing with sexual harassment.

It is amazing that saying men have constitutional rights equal to women is somehow a "war on women". Liberal logic never ceases to amaze me though.

[citation needed]

mod3072: PonceAlyosha: mod3072: F*ck the Democrats for intentionally trying to provoke the idiot Republicans by putting in language that they know the R's will oppose, and f*ck you Republicans for taking the bait.

"Goddamn democrats trying to extend domestic abuse protections to homosexuals and native American women! You should ignore those groups because Republicans don't like them!"

Do you see why that's so farking stupid?

I never once said I agree with the Republican's position. I'm saying the D's are using a politically convenient time to intentionally provoke the R-tards over a bill that should be a slam-dunk. Did homosexuals and Native American women just start getting abused recently? This really hasn't been an issue until a few months before a hotly contested election where social issues are getting first billing? Do you really believe this is more about helping people than scoring political points, and the timing is just purely coincidental?

I'll say it one more time as clearly as I can for everyone in the thread who seems to be missing the point: I do NOT agree with the Republican position on this. However, the D's have intentionally backed them into a corner by pushing issues that they know the frothy fundies will be up in arms about, and they're using battered women to score political points in an election year. How noble of them.

The bill expires this year, hence, (tada) the reason it needs to be reauthorized this year. It is a politically convient time for the Democrats, but blame the Republican controlled Congress of 2005 for setting the expiration date, not the current Democrats in Congress.

PonceAlyosha: You're an idiot.

Well, I stand corrected. Thank you for that insightful and thought-provoking argument.

qorkfiend: No, it does not.

"VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. [It] will be up for reauthorization in 2012." Link (new window)

A more suspicious person than I might note that it was the GOP who controlled Congress in 2005, and thus were the ones with the most power to set the new interestingly-timed expiration date.

Yes, I was wrong about that. Thank you for the correction. The timing is indeed interesting, and if the R's did that on purpose to try to score points, I think it's going end up biting them in the ass.

Philip Francis Queeg: Son being an uninformed asshole is no way to go through life. This bill doesn't come up every year. It was last renewed in 2005.

Or you could just be a dick about it like this guy.

One last time, for the reading-comprehension impaired: I'm not arguing the merits of the added provisions of the bill. I'm simply arguing that both sides are playing politics with a very important issue, and odds are good that innocent people are going to get soaked in the ensuing pissing contest (as usual). I fully stand behind my "F*ck you, Congress" statement, and this is only one of many, many issues that have led me to that conclusion. I'm sure it's completely the other guy's fault, but to argue that our current Congress is anything other than dysfunctional would be, in my opinion, incorrect. I'm not claiming the R's are innocent victims, and I'm not saying that minority women don't deserve protection, so some of you can go ahead and climb down from that cross.

gilgigamesh: ginandbacon: Ah. I see. Your crazy girlfriend hit you. You are fine. Therefore women should just get over it.

Pregnant women who aren't actually murdered by their abusive partners are more likely to suffer miscarriage, delayed labor (extremely dangerous for both mother and baby,) and psychological trauma. (Think PTSD type disorders.) Along with massive cramping, no, I'm not talking about discomfort.

Women who are abused account for almost $6 BILLION (yes, that's billion) in economic costs. About $4 billion of which is health care costs.

I'm sorry you stuck your dick in cray cray and she slapped you.

It's not the same thing.

That's not what I said. At all.

Interesting. For all you know, she hospitalized me, or tried to burn my house down. You have no idea.

But to make your point that a certain type of abuse is no big deal, you take a given situation you know nothing about and respond to it with ridicule and derision. You know, I'll bet that is something many abused women have to endure, and it only compounds their suffering.

I am sure there is a word for that. Off hand I can't think of what it is, but I'll bet its delicious.

Don't you know that if you get battered by a woman as a man it is just because you're a wimp (sarcasm, please don't hate me)? It is depressingly common for domestic violence against men to be discounted and ridiculed when reported. "Don't be such a nancy-boy" and other such helpful, supportive comments.

Unfortunately, it often takes life-threatening abuse on the part of the woman to garner actual sympathy and support.

Republicans must all be closeted self-hating homosexuals.

ginandbacon: Slikk210: Unfortunately, it often takes life-threatening abuse on the part of the woman to garner actual sympathy and support.

I think it's really interesting that you are equating someone's anecdote about what he himself dismissed as nothing that caused him lasting harm with the number one most dangerous situation for women for the majority of their lives.

Should male victims be offered the same protection as female victims? Absolutely. This bill does just that.

Do you support this bill?

Um, yes. I support the bill, I just dislike the fact that male victims of domestic abuse are often ignored or even ridiculed when seeking assistance. I never said anything to claim that men are abused more or...really...anything about women being abused. Is there a problem with spending one post commenting on something other than the abuse of women, which has admittedly been very thoroughly discussed, and highlighting another issue related to the topic?

Jackson Herring: Slikk210: Um, yes. I support the bill, I just dislike the fact that male victims of domestic abuse are often ignored or even ridiculed when seeking assistance. I never said anything to claim that men are abused more or...really...anything about women being abused. Is there a problem with spending one post commenting on something other than the abuse of women, which has admittedly been very thoroughly discussed, and highlighting another issue related to the topic?

The bill offers protection to male victims of domestic violence.

Thanks for re-re-re-reiterating that point.