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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Senate Democrats get their 60 votes for the Violence Against Women Act. Subby's not sure if this warrants a "spiffy" tag for the vote or a "sad" tag for the fact that 60 votes were needed to break a GOP filibuster   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 571
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10822 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 11:44:32 AM  
farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?
 
2013-02-01 12:03:30 PM  

FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?


Certainly not any social issues. They may have a few decent ideas in some of the finer points of their energy policy maybe.
 
2013-02-01 12:05:37 PM  

nekom: They may have a few decent ideas in some of the finer points of their energy policy maybe.


"drill, baby, drill?"
 
2013-02-01 12:17:17 PM  

FlashHarry:
"drill, baby, drill?"


Well, not to that extent. But realizing that if we intend to keep our current level of energy use, we are going to have to keep burning fossil fuels for a little while. Not that the Democrats don't acknowledge this to some extent, just trying to find SOMETHING to say they're right about. It's not easy.
 
2013-02-01 12:22:29 PM  

FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?


There are issues that they are at least in the murky gray area on. Like teacher unions. Every teacher I know thinks that the unions are not as efficiently run as they could be and a reform would save time and money in the long run. Except the Republican solution is to get rid of them entirely and then they react like any teacher who doesn't jump for joy at the news that they could lose protection from the parents is a union Marxist thug.
 
2013-02-01 12:24:10 PM  

FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?


No.
 
2013-02-01 12:27:12 PM  
Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.
 
2013-02-01 12:27:55 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?

No.


they didn't used to be so far out on the fringe. at one time, i considered myself a conservative on certain issues (fiscal, foreign policy). hell, i even voted republican in the 2002 senate race. sure it was for chuck hagel, but still...
 
2013-02-01 12:51:59 PM  
If only something could have done to make filibustering a bit more difficult.
 
2013-02-01 12:53:53 PM  
Ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
 
2013-02-01 01:05:09 PM  
FTFA:
VAWA originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized without incident in 2000 and 2005.

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?
 
2013-02-01 01:14:50 PM  
Good.  Now, let's watch as Boehner shoots himself in the foot again by refusing to vote on it.
 
2013-02-01 01:33:42 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Good.  Now, let's watch as Boehner shoots himself in the foot again by refusing to vote on it.


Yeah, I was going to say, it barely scraped by in our more functional arm of the legislative branch. Don't go breaking out the spiffy tag yet, subs.
 
2013-02-01 01:44:13 PM  

mahuika: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Good.  Now, let's watch as Boehner shoots himself in the foot again by refusing to vote on it.

Yeah, I was going to say, it barely scraped by in our more functional arm of the legislative branch. Don't go breaking out the spiffy tag yet, subs.


I'm expecting someone in the House threaten to smack a Congresswoman when it comes up for debate, frankly.
 
2013-02-01 01:52:08 PM  

dittybopper: FTFA:
VAWA originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized without incident in 2000 and 2005.

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?


From your link:

In a 5-4 decision, United States v. Morrison invalidated the section of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact this section.

Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?

Having said that, they only invalidated part of the Act.
 
2013-02-01 01:54:31 PM  

naughtyrev: mahuika: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Good.  Now, let's watch as Boehner shoots himself in the foot again by refusing to vote on it.

Yeah, I was going to say, it barely scraped by in our more functional arm of the legislative branch. Don't go breaking out the spiffy tag yet, subs.

I'm expecting someone in the House threaten to smack a Congresswoman when it comes up for debate, frankly.


Or threaten to throw acid in the face of one of them.
 
2013-02-01 02:01:56 PM  
What  exactly does this law do? I don't feel like looking it up
 
2013-02-01 02:04:44 PM  
Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?
 
2013-02-01 02:06:47 PM  
Not unexpected with a bunch of misogynists involved.
 
2013-02-01 02:07:58 PM  

Frank N Stein: What  exactly does this law do? I don't feel like looking it up


The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. The passage of VAWA in 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?


They didn't want to reauthorize it because of a new provision that includes the gheys and brown people:

The reauthorization has fallen prey to disputes between a Senate supermajority and House Republicans on whether to expand coverage to gays, illegal immigrants, college students and Native Americans.
 
2013-02-01 02:09:16 PM  

FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?


they do seem to work hard at being as offensive as is humanly possible.
 
2013-02-01 02:09:24 PM  

Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?


Oh, and it was drafted by Uncle Joe back in 1994.
 
2013-02-01 02:10:24 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. The passage of VAWA in 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.


I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.
 
2013-02-01 02:11:36 PM  
With the way the act is named, if they could convince the Republicans the Violence Against Women Act was endorsing smacking some biatches up because they left the kitchen, this thing would sail through the House with ease.
 
2013-02-01 02:12:04 PM  
A womans body shuts down before a violent act so it is like it never happened... or some shiat.
 
2013-02-01 02:12:05 PM  
I am surprised to learn that until today violence against women was legal.  huh.
 
2013-02-01 02:13:35 PM  

Frank N Stein: CapeFearCadaver: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark piece of legislation that sought to improve criminal justice and community-based responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in the United States. The passage of VAWA in 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000 and 2005, has changed the landscape for victims who once suffered in silence. Victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking have been able to access services, and a new generation of families and justice system professionals has come to understand that domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are crimes that our society will not tolerate.

I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.


I was thinking the same thing. For a minute I was worried that the name of it was deceptive for something else ala the "Patriot Act".
 
2013-02-01 02:13:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.


Yep, the name. Though this helps anyone who is a victim of the aforementioned violence. Yes, anyone. Well, except for gay people, brown people and college students that is.
 
2013-02-01 02:13:49 PM  
Not familiar with the bill.  But I am familiar with the practice (engaged in by both parties) of naming a bill something that sounds absolutely impossible to oppose, but that when someone bothers to read the bill (crazy, I know) it includes lots of either stuff that doesn't forward the goal the title implies or stuff that actually is in conflict with the title.

So no knee-jerk reaction from me.

dilbert.com
 
2013-02-01 02:14:09 PM  
Legitimate violence?
 
2013-02-01 02:14:10 PM  
Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.
 
2013-02-01 02:14:12 PM  
I love Leahy's "can you believe these jagoffs?" expression in the accompanying photo.
 
2013-02-01 02:14:12 PM  
Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?

They didn't want to reauthorize it because of a new provision that includes the gheys and brown people:

The reauthorization has fallen prey to disputes between a Senate supermajority and House Republicans on whether to expand coverage to gays, illegal immigrants, college students and Native Americans.


Geez, pretty soon it will only be safe to attack white people.  Err, white men.

fark those guys, amirite?
 
2013-02-01 02:14:27 PM  
Leahy-Crapo Bill ....really?

Ah well...fark you republicans.
 
2013-02-01 02:14:59 PM  
Wasteful litigation.  It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit.  Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
 
2013-02-01 02:15:14 PM  
Why not have a violence against people act?

Unless the people who wrote the VAWA have such a low opinion of women that they think they can't take care of themselves, and need special treatment.
 
2013-02-01 02:15:15 PM  
Wait, violence against women is legal? Why wasn't I told?
 
2013-02-01 02:15:42 PM  
ITT - people who have not read the bill and don't realize that it covers everyone, including straight white men
 
2013-02-01 02:15:43 PM  
Is there some sort of Purchasing Underage Hookers Act somewhere in the pipeline?
 
2013-02-01 02:15:54 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: But I am familiar with the practice (engaged in by both parties) of naming a bill something that sounds absolutely impossible to oppose, but that when someone bothers to read the bill (crazy, I know) it includes lots of either stuff that doesn't forward the goal the title implies or stuff that actually is in conflict with the title.


Who could possibly oppose the PATRIOT Act??  A traitor, that's who!
 
2013-02-01 02:16:11 PM  

FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?


Evil is as evil does.
 
2013-02-01 02:16:56 PM  
sex0r

Wasteful litigation. It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit. Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.

Don't be willing to discredit one political party without accepting the others faults for the same acts.
 
2013-02-01 02:17:02 PM  

jigger: Wait, violence against women is legal? Why wasn't I told?


Not anymore!  Sorry about your luck.
 
2013-02-01 02:17:06 PM  
Why would anyone support Violence Against Women?  And why do we need to make it a law?

I mean I've known a couple chicks that liked spanking, hair pulling and the occasional nipple tweak, but I'm not sure we need a law supporting it do we?
 
2013-02-01 02:17:15 PM  
So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...
 
2013-02-01 02:17:39 PM  
In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.
 
2013-02-01 02:18:29 PM  

Cythraul: If only something could have done to make filibustering a bit more difficult.


Democrats had the opportunity to end this in 2008 when they had a 60 seat supermajority, but nooo, they had to abuse the power republicans originally gave themselves when they had control of the senate in 2004.  Guess they didn't think the Republicans would act in universal lockstep all of the time.
 
2013-02-01 02:18:53 PM  
So all politics aside. Are there any studies that show how effective this program has been?
 
2013-02-01 02:18:56 PM  

mahuika: FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?

There are issues that they are at least in the murky gray area on. Like teacher unions. Every teacher I know thinks that the unions are not as efficiently run as they could be and a reform would save time and money in the long run. Except the Republican solution is to get rid of them entirely and then they react like any teacher who doesn't jump for joy at the news that they could lose protection from the parents is a union Marxist thug.


An excellent assessment.
 
2013-02-01 02:19:07 PM  

DeathCipris: So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...


esp since the GOP response to domestic violence has largely been 'well go get a gun and shoot the bastard who hit you'.  the idea that maybe there should be options OTHER than 'death or cake' seems to elude most Republican voters.
 
Displayed 50 of 571 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report