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.

(Huffington Post)   The GOP is trying to roll back protections for abused women. Why? No reason. Apparently they just like pissing you off   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 34
    More: Stupid, GOP, rollbacks, tributes, no reason  
•       •       •

4242 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 May 2012 at 1:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-05 01:52:19 PM
6 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: I'm actually getting kind of sick of this macro... That guy in that picture is probably an okay dude and doesn't deserve being associated with someone like SkinnyHead.


I love that guy (tard guy not Skinnyballs). He's just fascinating. Snappy dresser, tidy, pensive, apparently hates eyebrows. Dude has a story to tell and I want to hear it. He should be in those beer commercials with that suave motherfarker, who fences and has a tiger in his kitchen. I want to see one of those where the most interesting man in the world kills a pirate or wrestles a shark or something. Then he just looks up and there's tard guy, quietly nodding in approval, and then that suave cat gives him a fist bump and tells us to go get some Dos Equis. I would buy that beer.
2012-05-05 02:52:35 PM
3 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: [deus-ex-machinima.net image 396x303]

I'm actually getting kind of sick of this macro... That guy in that picture is probably an okay dude and doesn't deserve being associated with someone like SkinnyHead.


How about this. This character seems more his speed.

i935.photobucket.com
2012-05-05 01:56:24 PM
3 votes:
Every time the GOP does something stupid, it adds another year to the wait before I think about voting for them.

So at this point, I may look at the GOP possibilities in the 8320 election.
2012-05-05 02:08:20 PM
2 votes:
Democrat: 'we're proposing a resolution that says kicking puppies makes you a bad person and you should feel bad.'

GOP: hey, we agree! [adds amendment banning abortion].

Democrats: 'WTF dude? why did you do that!?'

GOP: 'do what? we said we supported your anti-puppy kicking resolution. lets vote!'

Democrats: 'we can't vote for that. you added in an amendment that you know we oppose.'

GOP: 'no idea what you're talking about dude. you must be high. you look high. i'll bet you're high, you hippie smoking pot head. now we voting on this thing or not?'

Democrats: 'what is this...I don't...NO! We can't vote for this and you know it!'

GOP: [stage whisper] See! I told you the Democrats kick puppies!'

Freepers: 'those bastards! vote them out!'
2012-05-05 01:38:28 PM
2 votes:
deus-ex-machinima.net

I'm actually getting kind of sick of this macro... That guy in that picture is probably an okay dude and doesn't deserve being associated with someone like SkinnyHead.
2012-05-06 10:40:43 PM
1 votes:
Captain Dan:

Way to troll the thread. You made the whole thing about you, distorted almost everything your opponents said beyond recognition, and maintained a shrill tone condescending faux civility throughout.

10/10
2012-05-06 12:01:06 AM
1 votes:

Captain Dan: Yes. This was the falsest claim of all. Republicans have always viewed the Fluke case as a matter of protecting religious freedom, not of limiting contraception.


Yeah, I'm glad that Republicans are so interested now in protecting religious freedom. I remember when they stood firm for religious freedom when muslims wanted to build a Mosque in downtown Manhattan.
2012-05-05 06:40:04 PM
1 votes:

Keizer_Ghidorah: The GOP is doing everything it can to make it a holy war. "SIN! JESUS! GOD! BIBLE! LEVITICUS! CHRISTIAN VALUES! CHRISTIAN TRADITION!" Pick one or more as the reason for everything they do.


I hate it when Republicans do that. I choose not to do the same, and try to lower the temperature whenever possible.

Pretty sure God said "love, care for, and help each other", not "demonize and destroy everything that annoys you in my name".

What God says is important for personal conduct, but irrelevant with regard to a secular government. The reason we outlaw theft is because our Constitution enshrines property rights, not because thievery is immoral.
2012-05-05 06:32:38 PM
1 votes:

quatchi: Of course one should make up one's own mind but for you to shut your mind to other views (as it appears you do from your post there) before making up your mind does make you seem a little narrow minded.


Perhaps I've been unclear. I don't shut my mind to other views. But nor do I submit to them without personal assent.
2012-05-05 06:30:11 PM
1 votes:
bugontherug: When asked to acknowledge the legitimacy of Griswold and Baird, Romney declined to do so.

There are three interpretations why he did so. It's up to your judgment which one sounds likeliest.

1) Mitt Romney is concealing his plans to pack the Supreme Court with the goal of one day criminalizing contraception.

2) Mitt Romney, despite having graduated from Harvard Law School, doesn't understand the implications of Griswold.

3) Mitt Romney doesn't want to limit contraception at all, but has to pretend that he might in order to pander to the socially conservative voters who dominate Republican primaries.

I see you're committed to evading the question of whether repealing the law was actively hostile to the interests of women.

As I've posted above, I don't know enough about the law to have an informed opinion about its repeal. From what I understand, the advocates for repeal were primarily interested in reducing discrimination lawsuits. Again, I leave it to your good judgment what was the likelier motivation:

1) Republican legislators wanted to reduce discrimination lawsuits because, deep down, they really just want women to suffer.

2) Republican legislators wanted to reduce discrimination lawsuits because they're bad for business.

Walker repealed the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which created a state cause of action with state damages for pay discrimination in the workplace. In so doing, he eliminated Wisconsin's state ban on pay discrimination in the workplace. Thus making it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate against women in pay.

Wage discrimination is still not legal under Wisconsin law, because it illegal under federal law (Equal Pay Act of 1963) and federal statute always takes precedent over state law. All Walker did was repeal the redundant state version, which was passed in 2009, and return jurisdiction to the federal government.

Californians have repeatedly voted to legalize marijuana, which is illegal under federal law. Despite the absence of California state laws against marijuana, smoking marijuana in California is not perfectly legal, and doing so will land the smoker in trouble.

Of course the federal cause of action remains. But federal courts are more expensive, and dominated by activist judges committed to rigidly anti-plaintiff ideology. They bias juries against non-corporate plaintiffs, find petty excuses to throw out real claims, and when non-corporate plaintiffs do win damages, they reduce or eliminate the damages on appeal.

If you want to make a Critical Legal Studies argument, there are better ways to do so.

I'm not interested in Roberts' motive, though there exists substantial evidence that he is driven in part by anti-woman, pro-corporate ideology. I am interested in the fact that he selected a novel interpretation which was the most pro-corporate, woman-hostile interpretation available to that statute.

He interpreted the law straightforwardly. Your contention, therefore, isn't really against Roberts, but against the text of the Civil Rights Act. That was amended 3 years ago by the Lily Ledbetter Act.

There is no evidence at all that Roberts is biased for corporations or against women, unless you want to engage in a CLS argument that all law is inherently pro-corporation and anti-women.

If you were being 100% reasonable, you would too consider changing your mind in response to effectively framed arguments supported by objective facts of reality.

I change my mind fairly frequently. On some issues I've drifted to the left; on others, further to the right.

Depending on context, they may or may not be. Surely a woman who has in fact been raped is fairly characterized as a "victim." Or do you find that "too loaded?" And if you do find it "too loaded," do you likewise deny that saying rape victims shouldn't be called rape victims is actively hostile to the interests of women?

Even if it were fair to characterize them as victims, disregarding the potential of false accusations, I would still avoid the term. It unavoidably prejudices.

I deny that this is hostile to women. I value the same approach to all crimes and for all genders.

Similarly, your denial that the Republican Party is actively hostile to the interests of women, which within the context of our political culture is reasonably flourished as a "War on Women," suggests that you too are a Fox News viewer.

I've posted above that I don't watch Fox News. Are you claiming that (1) I watch Fox News without being aware of it, or (2) that I watch Fox News and lie about it?

If I've omitted some other interpretation which doesn't speak poorly of you, please say so. Perhaps "Fox News viewer" is a metaphorical term that you use for people who do not in fact view Fox News?
2012-05-05 06:04:40 PM
1 votes:

A Dark Evil Omen: [deus-ex-machinima.net image 396x303]

I'm actually getting kind of sick of this macro... That guy in that picture is probably an okay dude and doesn't deserve being associated with someone like SkinnyHead.


j.wigflip.com
2012-05-05 05:49:27 PM
1 votes:

Captain Dan: quatchi: For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, my lack of surprise at this pronouncement is near absolute.

There's no need to be passive-agressive. If you think I'm wrong, make a convincing argument why I am. I'll listen.


Why you are wrong to dismiss so many other people's opinions out of hand?

You're kidding, right?

If I'd posted "I don't care what the Vatican says, I'll make up my own mind," would you object? Probably not, and for good reason: because suspending my critical faculties in deference to elite opinion would be the height of mindlessness. That holds for both the religious elite (the Vatican) and the political elite ("the civilized world" - except for the conservative parts of it).

Because looking to what other similar governments do on this issue around the world is exactly the same thing as taking advice from a religious institution?

That noted, the religious objections of not wanting to pay for BC, as I mentioned in my previous post, have been addressed to most people's satisfaction.

Of course one should make up one's own mind but for you to shut your mind to other views (as it appears you do from your post there) before making up your mind does make you seem a little narrow minded, one might even say a mite "Skinnyheaded".

You know, if one were inclined to be cruel.
2012-05-05 05:37:06 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: I suppose there's probably some psychic harm in leaving frustrations unexpressed, as well.


It's healthier to just let it go. The most pragmatic thing you can do is to commit to being even more exemplary in your own conduct, which will inspire other people to do the same.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Don't want to be associated with dickheads, then either get away from them or stand up to them. Sitting back and letting the dickheads continue to attack women, homosexuals, minorities, poor, and other religions while pounding their Bibles and saying their cause is just and supported by God makes you as bad as they are, if not worse.


I haven't always stood up with my fellow conservatives, despite the fact that it would have been much easier and more socially convenient to do so. I've lost a few conservative friends because I didn't toe the line.

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Although the guiding sentiment is correct, you should try to avoid that kind of language. It's politics, not a holy war.
2012-05-05 05:26:35 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: It's not 'anti-corporate hostility' to point out the facts of our situation. and the fact is, corporations are screwing over US workers for no other reason than they can do it and get away with it. ok, fine - to them it's just business. But for the rest of us, it's kinda personal.


You've touched on something that I feel strongly about - the disconnect between policy makers and the people affected. It's not just a Washington D.C. thing. The think tanks, business executives, and intellectuals who decide policy tend to all come from demographically secluded, upper-middle-class environs. Most of them don't ever encounter the people affected by their decisions.

I know these people. I'm one of them. It makes me uncomfortable to see the disconnect between some of my friends in the elite class and the realities facing the other 90% of their countrymen.

The reason there hasn't been a stronger response to the economic recession in the past 4 years is because it has been so socially localized. To elites, there hasn't been a recession at all. They haven't lost any jobs, their friends and neighbors haven't, and their kids have no trouble finding jobs. They don't understand just how hard it's been for other people.

It's not malevolence on their part, and it won't be solved by threatening them. The only solution is to force awareness on their part. Write letters. Send pictures. Tell your story.

Very few politicians are actually heartless. Most of them are limited either by timidity or unawareness.
2012-05-05 05:12:18 PM
1 votes:

quatchi: For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.

For the record, my lack of surprise at this pronouncement is near absolute.


There's no need to be passive-agressive. If you think I'm wrong, make a convincing argument why I am. I'll listen.

If I'd posted "I don't care what the Vatican says, I'll make up my own mind," would you object? Probably not, and for good reason: because suspending my critical faculties in deference to elite opinion would be the height of mindlessness. That holds for both the religious elite (the Vatican) and the political elite ("the civilized world" - except for the conservative parts of it).
2012-05-05 05:04:54 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: While I disagree with much of true Conservatism, I respect it, and do not consider adherents dickheads. But they are a dying breed.


I feel that way too. But I don't trash the faux-conservatives as "dickheads." Disagreeable is not a synonym for douchebag.

Essentially, I wouldn't call someone a dickhead even if they were in fact a dickhead. It accomplishes nothing productive. The temporary satisfaction of venting is outweighed by the psychic harm from holding such strong negative feelings against a person.
2012-05-05 04:58:46 PM
1 votes:

bugontherug: [R]espond to my argument re: Romney and Santorum seeking to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases establishing the federal constitutional right to contraception. This isn't about public funding for contraception.This is about the constitutional right to use contraception.


I can find no quotes of Romney saying that. Santorum did, because he opposes the idea of a right to privacy as a penumbral right. I think he's wrong, and I'm glad that he's not the GOP's nominee.

The point of view you offer would oppose all federal funding for abortion, not just federal funding for minors impregnated by sexual predators.

You're not accurately summarizing this matter, but to respond to your broader claim: the Republican Party is going to try to limit abortions in almost all cases (except, as mentioned earlier, the life of the mother). That's part of the party platform.

If they can only achieve this goal piecemeal, then that's what they'll do.

In fact, Walker did make it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate on the basis of pay.

No, he didn't. If you think otherwise, please provide the proof that has eluded everyone else.

Its only provision was to overturn a novel, pro-corporation Supreme Court decision with the practical effect of banning nearly all federal causes of action for pay discrimination. Their opposition to it was actively hostile to the interests of women.

I'm not able to read John Roberts' mind, as you apparently are, but I seriously doubt that unbridled misogyny was the impelling force in his decision.

You are factually incorrect. All 17 of those Senators, even the 5 who supported the final bill, first participated in the filibuster. At that time, Republicans unanimously opposed the bill.

I stand corrected! Voting to filibuster, and then immediately voting for closure to end debate, strikes me as more rhetorical point-making than a devious stratagem in the War on Women.

Were you being reasonable, you would have acknowledged the hostility toward women exhibited by the effort to rename only the crimes of which women are typically victims. But instead of being reasonable, you're trying to pretend the Republican Party isn't actively hostile to the interests of women. It is.

Were I being 100% reasonable, I wouldn't engage with someone whose mind isn't going to change regardless of what I say. But, I hope some other posters will read what I've posted and think "that guy is actually pretty reasonable."

The terms "accuser" and "victim" are both too loaded to be used impartially. Almost any reasonable person will agree with that.

My views of Republicans are founded on researched objective facts of reality, many of which you are either ignorant of, or found so inconvenient that you disregarded them completely. If you get past the Fox News talking points, you'll see that the Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women, which was the subject of my post.

I don't watch Fox News, because it poisons minds and polarizes otherwise decent people. People who get their news from partisan sources so often end up repeating talking points like "Republicans really are actively hostile to the interests of women."

On a final but important note: I'm sorry to break this to you, but you are not the sole arbiter of what is reasonable.
2012-05-05 04:40:46 PM
1 votes:
You guys do know that there are more important things going on right now right? We have both Jessica Alba and Mila Kunis threads going on so there is no need to waste a bunch of time over here on women claiming about how they are equal but need special protections and funding.for women's stuff and if you disagree you are just mean.
2012-05-05 04:32:16 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: It would be difficult, and a variety of corporate interests would scream bloody murder...but we could fix our wage stagnation if the will was there to get it done.


I agree, although I don't think that anti-corporate hostility is the ticket to get there.
2012-05-05 04:30:08 PM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Oh please. You defend the scum at every opportunity. I don't play semantics games with trolls.


Not trolling, nor playing the pedant.
2012-05-05 04:28:48 PM
1 votes:

quatchi: Calling it an entitlement is a misnomer that makes it sound like women want something for nothing when in reality they just want their access to health services not dictated by religious whim.


If that's the case, then why in God's name did Sandra Fluke attend a Catholic university that was morally opposed to providing the service she desires?

The real question here "is should a business be allowed to disallow access to contraception based on their beliefs or does a woman's right to access to basic health care (which includes various forms of BC) trump those concerns?"

I say yes, yes they do.

The rest of the civilized world tends to agree.

What do you say?


In cases of conflicting values, I grant the broadest tolerance towards religious freedom. Although I support birth control, and think that Catholic universities should offer it, I'm not going to compel them to do so. That strikes me as wrong, and unconstitutional.

For the record, I really don't care what the civilized world has to say about this. I'll make up my own mind.
2012-05-05 04:23:10 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Nevertheless, "conservatives" are clearly engaged in an effort to strip women of control of their own bodies and lives. But we again, you are right, we don't need to call it a war to point out what dickheads "conservatives" are.


I'm a conservative. Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative. We're not dickheads. Most of us aren't - there are some in every group. But the proportion is no different than in any other political demographic.

I realize that you probably don't actually believe that all, or even most, conservatives are dickheads. If you do, then you need more life experience. If you don't, then you need to be the bigger person and stop engaging in political sniping. Seriously: this crap ruins discourse. It is dehumanizing.

Dehumanization is always the precursor to hating a person or group. If you can mentally navigate yourself out of that pitfall, you will be happier, and you will have a more accurate and ethical point of view.
2012-05-05 04:12:39 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: I was referring to the fact that middle class wages have been flat for the past 20 years while productivity has risen...why you went with 'OMGSOCIALISMS' is entirely beyond me but...just as you will.


Middle class wages have stagnated (actually, adjusted for inflation, they've decreased) because of factors beyond any political party's control. The loosening of capital flows and increased global competitiveness have guaranteed that there's no going back to the days of a guaranteed steady paycheck from the local manufacturer.

This is a difficult message, and its difficulty is compounded because both parties pretend at election time that those middle-class jobs might come back. They mostly aren't.

It seems essential for a nation and a society to generate well-paying jobs for the lesser skilled. How to accomplish that is a better question than wondering why the middle-class don't support higher income tax rates for the rich.
2012-05-05 03:57:44 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: There's no war on women.

Just a war on poor women.


There's no war on anyone. This language inflation crap is done solely for the purpose of riling up gullible partisans. It cheapens discourse, leads to enmity, and guarantees political dysfunction.

I didn't care for the Republicans' "War on Christmas", and I don't care for the Democrats' "War on Women". It's disgusting to hear politicians and media figures, almost all of whom have never seen an actual trench, treat the word so meaninglessly.
2012-05-05 03:48:46 PM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You support the establishment of a pay-for-play system for combating pay discrimination.


You need to read more carefully. I corrected a claim which was factually inaccurate. That doesn't mean, or even insinuate, that I supported anything.

In this case, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion, which is why I've withheld comment about the wisdom of the repeal.

What the fark is wrong with people like you?

We're afflicted with good reading comprehension.
2012-05-05 03:37:57 PM
1 votes:

Weaver95: If you make less than $100,000 a year and vote Republican, then you are shooting yourself in the foot.


Not everyone votes solely on profit-maximization. If they did, they would rationally vote to amend the Constitution, and then seize and redistribute Bill Gates' assets.

If you can understand why people might view that as immoral, anti-social, and disincentivizing, then you can surely fathom why they might support the Republican platform of low taxes on all income.
2012-05-05 03:28:44 PM
1 votes:

bugontherug: In 1994, VAWA addressed a problem faced by abused immigrant women who are married to citizens or legal residents. In some cases, husbands would use their control over their victims' immigration status as a tool of abuse, refusing to sign the proper paperwork or threatening to revoke it. The act created a "self-petitioning" process that allows such women to confidentially apply for protected immigration status on their own. Protections for immigrant women have been strengthened in subsequent reauthorizations of the bill.


That's not what the GOP is opposing. Their contention is that the standard of evidence in self-petitioning cases should be strengthened from a "preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing," in order to combat immigration fraud.

In the past few months, the Republicans have:

1) Argued to overturn the constitutional right to contraception, which primarily benefits women.

There is no constitutional entitlement to contraception, only the right to lawfully purchase it. You've confused "not illegal" with "everyone is entitled to it."

2) Sought to redefine rape for purposes of federal law banning taxpayer funding for abortions.

I'm with you on this one, because I am pro-choice. But I understand the opposing viewpoint, and you don't. From a coherent pro-life view, abortion is murder, and murder shouldn't be permitted even in the most inconvenient circumstances (i.e. unless the mother's life is at risk).

3) Brought a bill before the House of Representatives to permit hospitals to refuse to perform abortions where the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.

Very few Republicans oppose abortions that are necessary to protect the mother's life. There's a small handful of them, and they don't constitute much of an army for the "War on Women."

4) Sought to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, which provides family planning services and contraception to millions of women across the country. Mitt Romney has promised to eliminate all federal funding for planned parenthood.

Agreed. This is loathsome pandering.

5) Sought to eliminate provisions of federal law protecting immigrant victims of domestic violence by permitting them to work confidentially with law enforcement to protect themselves from their abusers.

Addressed above.

6) Republican Scott Walker has now made it perfectly legal under Wisconsin law to discriminate in pay on the basis of sex.

He did not make it "perfectly legal," he changed the appropriate venue for remedy from state courts to federal courts.

7) Republican appointed activists on the Supreme Court effectively banned nearly all federal pay discrimination lawsuits by anti-textually, and against years of established practice, interpreted the pay discrimination law to require action within six months of the first act of discrimination, which in nearly all cases is undiscovered for years.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) clearly specified the timetable to bring lawsuits: 180 days. Lily Ledbetter did not meet that timetable. Conservative justices ruled against her in 2007, upholding the text of the Civil Rights Act.

Two years later, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amended Title VII to extend the statute of limitations. The courts have not opposed this.

8) Unanimously opposed and filibustered in the Senate the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which overturned the absurd Supreme Court decision in item 6.

The bill was opposed because Democrats, possessing majorities in both chambers, were not entertaining any Republican input, such as provisions to limit frivolous lawsuits.

Also, you are factually incorrect: 17 Republican Senators voted for closure on the bill, and 5 Republican Senators supported the final version of the Act.

9) In Georgia, Republicans seek to rename those who allege rape, stalking, and domestic violence as "accusers," rather than "victims." For all other laws, the statutory designation would remain "victims."

The term "victim" is loaded. So is "accuser." They should have gone with a more neutral term. Same goes for all crimes.

What's crazy? That's just the sh*t I can think of off the top of my head. Because of conservative bias in the corporate controlled media, most of this crap goes unreported. If it were widely known, almost no woman would even think about voting Republican.

I'm glad that you're politically involved, but your views of Republicans are founded on distortions. If you get past the talking points, you'll find that political issues rarely break down to Good vs. Evil.
2012-05-05 03:08:13 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: hasty ambush: As for abortions nobody is stopping them, they are just not forcing others to pay for them.

So you're just a willfully ignorant idiot who missed the fact that you don't pay for abortions already?

You are showing your ignorance . It is just BS accounting smoke and mirrors. If the taxpayers give Planned Parenthood X dollars to use for things like cancer screening or even paying the rent that frees up x amount of dollars from other sources that might have normally been used for cancer screenings and rent to be used for abortions.


Ah, yes. This idiotic argument.

It's like me supporting sex out of wedlock because I shop at Walgreen's where they also sell condoms and KY Jelly.

Because with that logic, if I give Walgreen's money to buy Tylenol, that frees up money Walgreen's can use to buy Condoms and Ky Jelly from their supplier.
2012-05-05 03:06:05 PM
1 votes:

hasty ambush: Mrtraveler01: hasty ambush: As for abortions nobody is stopping them, they are just not forcing others to pay for them.

So you're just a willfully ignorant idiot who missed the fact that you don't pay for abortions already?

You are showing your ignorance . It is just BS accounting smoke and mirrors. If the taxpayers give Planned Parenthood X dollars to use for things like cancer screening or even paying the rent that frees up x amount of dollars from other sources that might have normally been used for cancer screenings and rent to be used for abortions.


careful...I can go places with that view. places you won't like.
2012-05-05 02:56:24 PM
1 votes:
Too bad the War on Women isn't an actual war. Then, Republicans would throw money at it happily.
2012-05-05 01:49:59 PM
1 votes:
Pfft.

It's not like they called it the Prevention of Violence Against Women Act.
2012-05-05 01:37:20 PM
1 votes:
i47.tinypic.com
2012-05-05 01:09:23 PM
1 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Forty-Two: Fark It: House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Wow. People are going to die because of this if the GOP gets their way.

But some people might abuse the system, therefore no one should have it! See also: welfare.

That will teach those women to be abused!


I think the GOP is thinking "Why can't we beat our women? If I kick my stove, that's okay. What's the difference?"
2012-05-05 12:18:35 PM
1 votes:

Fark It: That process is managed by a specific branch of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services based in Vermont, where officials are highly trained in secrecy and in dealing with domestic violence situations. Extreme precautions are taken to assure that the victim's identity or action is not revealed to the abuser, for obvious reasons.

The Republican bill would eliminate that confidentiality and require women to go to the closest immigration office. It would allow the officer, not specifically trained in domestic violence response, to reach out to and inform the abusive partner that the alleged victim is applying for immigration status.

House Republicans say that some women have taken advantage of the confidentiality by fraudulently claiming abuse to acquire residency status. Victims who are not committing fraud, however, will now be exposed to retaliatory violence.

Wow. People are going to die because of this if the GOP gets their way.


Not people, illegals. Doesn't count.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report