Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10865 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



571 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.
 
2013-02-01 02:19:34 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...


They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.
 
2013-02-01 02:20:29 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.


I live with my mom would not read again
 
2013-02-01 02:20:33 PM  

GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.


How about we compromise and give women guns?
 
2013-02-01 02:20:33 PM  

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


It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.

(Gets popcorn while the shiatstorm of derp cometh).
 
2013-02-01 02:21:04 PM  
Republicans on women in the army: "Women are delicate flowers who should not be allowed in combat."
Republicans on women in general: "Women can fend for themselves and don't need special protection."

So which is it? Make up your minds, Republicans.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:18 PM  

sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.


Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:43 PM  
While I may not agree with the Republican party, they aren't demons out to get you.

Sometimes Fark gets uncomfortably close to groupthink.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:46 PM  
I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:56 PM  
DrewCurtisJr

So all politics aside. Are there any studies that show how effective this program has been?

Yes, like the war on drugs, gun control and speed limits. If you make a law people always follow it.

/no I didn't say that with a straight face.
 
2013-02-01 02:21:59 PM  
Let's see what Gayle Trotter, the same woman who thinks women have a right to carry an AR15 for self-defense although she couldn't provide one example of when an AR15 was used for self-defense, thinks about this law.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/gayle-trotter-violence-wo me n-guns.php

Trotter opposed VAWA, she wrote last year, because it opened the door to false accusers wasting taxpayer funds.
"Americans all want to deter violence, but we also need to protect that foundational principle of the presumption of innocence," said her April 2012 post. "Needed resources like shelters and legal aid can be taken by false accusers, denying real victims of abuse access to these supports. That result runs directly counter to the VAWA's spirit."


Oh...
 
2013-02-01 02:22:00 PM  
FARK the FARK out of both sides on this one.
How about a violence against PEOPLE act?
MORANS.
Sexist assholes.
 
2013-02-01 02:22:08 PM  

Cyno01: GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.

How about we compromise and give women guns?


If you want to give them a weapon you already know they're dangerous with, give all women cars.
 
2013-02-01 02:22:25 PM  

sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.


If you don't count the funding for programs to help victims of domestic violence, sure.
 
2013-02-01 02:22:36 PM  
The Violins Against Women Act is not very effective, since most women prefer guitars anyway.
 
2013-02-01 02:22:40 PM  
60 senators are pro Violence Against Women?
 
2013-02-01 02:22:53 PM  

sex0r: .  This is the equivalent of double secret probatio


It's farking grandstanding for farking votes and they ought to STFU and GBTW and fix the shait they broke.
 
2013-02-01 02:22:59 PM  

coeyagi: It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.


Accused?  Really?
 
2013-02-01 02:23:11 PM  
Why should there be separate laws for women?
 
2013-02-01 02:23:28 PM  
I love this act... But to get the votes they must of removed the part about Native police on the Native reserves being allowed to arrest the white men who be raping and assaulting their women.
 
2013-02-01 02:23:30 PM  

MrEricSir: Republicans on women in the army: "Women are delicate flowers who should not be allowed in combat."
Republicans on women in general: "Women can fend for themselves and don't need special protection."

So which is it? Make up your minds, Republicans.


I believe it's... "Teen moms like Sarah McKinley need assault weapons (like a shotgun?) to fend off intruders." -Some jackass gun advocate witness at hearing.
 
2013-02-01 02:23:47 PM  

kericr: 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.


They had reauthorized it in 2005 for FYs 2007-2011. Why would they think they need to reauthorize it 2 years early, especially considering that in 1994, 2000 and 2005 it was a pretty easy bill to pass?
 
2013-02-01 02:23:54 PM  

vudukungfu: How about a violence against PEOPLE act?


That's what this is dude... regarding DV of any sort. Does no one read?
 
2013-02-01 02:24:32 PM  

GoldSpider: coeyagi: It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.

Accused?  Really?


Shhh.  I wanna see HIS reaction.
 
2013-02-01 02:24:42 PM  

vudukungfu: sex0r: .  This is the equivalent of double secret probatio

It's farking grandstanding for farking votes and they ought to STFU and GBTW and fix the shait they broke.


Except for the funding for programs to combat domestic violence, that's true, too. See, if you ignore the relevant facts, you can seem truthy.
 
2013-02-01 02:25:05 PM  
There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.
 
2013-02-01 02:25:10 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


Gore Vidal wrote a novel where the term 'Rehnquist' was used for the male sexual organ:

On censoring his own novel, Myron in 1974

"I've removed the dirty words and replaced them with clean words... I thought and thought for a long time: What are the cleanest words I can find? And I discovered that I could not come up with any cleaner words than the names of the five Supreme Court justices who have taken on the task of cleansing this country of pornography. I inserted the words in place of the dirty words. For example, a cock becomes a rehnquist."
 
2013-02-01 02:25:12 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: 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.



Well then the Republicans are right. If I cant slap the snot out of an illegal then what else is left?!
 
2013-02-01 02:25:14 PM  
What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?
 
2013-02-01 02:25:16 PM  

GoldSpider: coeyagi: It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.

Accused?  Really?


Accused, No. Convicted of, or have a DVOP placed against you, yes.
 
2013-02-01 02:25:29 PM  

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


I don't know why but this made me laugh uncontrollably.
 
2013-02-01 02:25:46 PM  
It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.
 
2013-02-01 02:25:50 PM  

JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.


Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.
 
2013-02-01 02:26:14 PM  

sex0r: Wasteful litigation.  It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit.  <b>Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it</b>, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.


And what would those be?
 
2013-02-01 02:26:42 PM  

kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


Correct.  Just like Wal-mart and K-mart are of equal might in the retail wars.
 
2013-02-01 02:26:51 PM  

rustypouch: 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.


TROLL??
because the cops, das and courts were ignoring the laws and treating women like second class citizens.
the WAVA went a long way to help solve THOSE issues. we wouldnt have needed the act in the first place if the men had been properly doing their jobs in the first place.

unless you are just a troll
in which case, we need the act to help kill trolls ...
:D
 
2013-02-01 02:26:53 PM  

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


Give 'em a gun and some training, problem solved!
 
2013-02-01 02:27:18 PM  

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


You may want to read the bill, as those questions are answered therein.
 
2013-02-01 02:27:19 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: 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.


Sunday will be my 30th birthday.  (Some of what I am about to post you all have heard from me, others not)  I was born and raised in VERY Republican Orange County, SoCal by very Republican parents.  As I've gotten older, and as I look back, I am shocked that I ever associated with the Republican Party.  I honestly do not grasp what I consider to be the total lack of compassion for their fellow man from them.

From immigration issues (like kids who were brought here when they were 2 years old and now baring them from getting in state tuition for college, even though they went through the entire public school system all through high school), to their unwavering protection of the wrong doings of corporations, to their indifference to the environment, to their willingness to associate with the extreme religious right and the Tea Party (which alienates moderates), to what seems to be an absolute psychopathic hatred to women (transvaginal ultrasounds, access to basic medical needs and contraception), to the way the LGBTQ community is viewed as an object of hate...I could go on and on.

I am far from a Leftist, there is a lot of what the Republicans preach that I agree with, specifically surrounding how the government chooses to spend its money and some truly crazy, over reaching government regulation.  That being said, the Republican party in my opinion is run by a lot of folks who are truly out of touch with both the middle class/common man and the nations youth.
 
2013-02-01 02:27:24 PM  

snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.


farm5.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-01 02:27:47 PM  

Treygreen13: I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.


because obama is a black muslim?
because the teahadists?

was there another reason? could you provide a good link??
 
2013-02-01 02:27:59 PM  

coeyagi: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

Correct.  Just like Wal-mart and K-mart are of equal might in the retail wars.


Oh shiat, butthurt partisan and so quick.  Bravo with your false equivalence.
 
2013-02-01 02:28:02 PM  
Wait, so it's still legal to beat the crap out of men?
 
2013-02-01 02:28:04 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?


Doesn't matter what's in it, it's the fact that the Democrats want it to pass.  That one fact immediately results in the folks on the other side automatically screaming "NO".
 
2013-02-01 02:28:17 PM  

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


It funds programs that combat domestic violence and assist victims of it. Ooooh, controversial!
 
2013-02-01 02:29:50 PM  
Now we need a bill on violence against chickens.  I KNOW they will block that one.
 
2013-02-01 02:29:56 PM  

Puff The Destroyer: CapeFearCadaver: 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.


Well then the Republicans are right. If I cant slap the snot out of an illegal then what else is left?!


Snot is for wiping these days of Nanny Rule.
You can't even slap your own kid in front of a witness.
This too, ends badly.
 
2013-02-01 02:30:12 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


IANAL nor a Constitutional expert, but my guess would be that there's nothing about it that makes it  Federal business. So long as the victim can get redress in State courts, there's no reason for the Feds to be involved. There's certainly no link to interstate commerce (which would allow the appeal to the Commerce Clause); and as long as states are not violating Due Process nor Equal Protection for victims of gender-motivated violence, no cause to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment.

Just my 2c.
 
2013-02-01 02:30:17 PM  
Theeng:

Sometimes Fark gets uncomfortably close to groupthink.

"Sometimes"????
 
2013-02-01 02:30:51 PM  

kombat_unit: coeyagi: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

Correct.  Just like Wal-mart and K-mart are of equal might in the retail wars.

Oh shiat, butthurt partisan and so quick.  Bravo with your false equivalence.


Um.... projection.jpg.

Dude, your comment was a false equivalency.  My K-mart / Wal-mart analogy was to point out said false equivalency.

Do you understand how things work here?  Oh, right, we're on the Main page too, where the rubber / glue argument is still en vogue.
 
2013-02-01 02:30:55 PM  

kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."
 
2013-02-01 02:31:08 PM  

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


It's a set aside of a couple of billion dollars a year for the special investigation and prosecution of anyone who commits violence against women.  It is feel-good pork legislation for things that are already illegal and already prosecuted.  Most importantly, I don't understand why the entire thing isn't unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.
 
2013-02-01 02:31:22 PM  

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


If he does, it's his Constitional right to use an assault rifle with a 100 round clip
 
2013-02-01 02:31:42 PM  

rev. dave: Now we need a bill on violence against chickens.  I KNOW they will block that one.


Well, first, they're seemingly Pro-Rape. But even if they weren't they're not hurting the chicken, they just keep making sweet, sweet love to it.
 
2013-02-01 02:32:13 PM  

snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.


Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling
 
2013-02-01 02:32:27 PM  
I thought females were supposed to be "equals" right?

Why do we need "special" farking laws for females?

Or gays, or "minorities"?

Equal under the law right?

I guess farking not.

So if it's "every group for themselves", than I guess we should all just stop pretending we give a fark about anybody outside of our specific "team" right?
 
2013-02-01 02:32:52 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?


Because Congress is limited in its authority.  We have a government who powers are limited by the Constitution.  That's a *GOOD* thing, because it puts limits on what the federal government can and can not do.  You may or may not agree in this particular case, but I think everyone would agree that giving Congress unlimited powers to pass any law they want is a bad idea.
 
2013-02-01 02:32:54 PM  
The old GOP is no longer the "Republican Party".
They have rebranded themselves down the alley to just "The AntiDemocratic Party".

Please rediscover Truth, Justice and The American Way.
It was good times!
 
2013-02-01 02:33:01 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?


You're about to get a lot of "war on women" derp headed your way.

My google searches only turn up Democrats asking the question and no Republican answers.  So, either the Republicans are being mum on the issue or Democrats have better SEO skills to make it look like the Republicans are mum on the issue.  I'll go with the first one.
 
2013-02-01 02:33:06 PM  

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


What specific points did the "farking republicans" have a problem with?  Do you know? Can you speak for those points?  It wouldn't be the first time that the, er, let's see, "farking dummycraps" (did I get that right) added some rider to a bill just to make the Republicans look bad when opposing the whole package.  "My opponent voted against blahblah", kind of tactics.

What's the whole story?  I haven't read the whole bill yet, have you?
 
2013-02-01 02:33:13 PM  

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

It's a set aside of a couple of billion dollars a year for the special investigation and prosecution of anyone who commits violence against women.  It is feel-good pork legislation for things that are already illegal and already prosecuted.  Most importantly, I don't understand why the entire thing isn't unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.


Holy carp. Do you eat blatant lies for breakfast?
 
2013-02-01 02:33:30 PM  

kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


But why does it appear on one side of the aisle so often?

And to think it only passed when changed so some could rape brown people until they self-deported.
 
2013-02-01 02:33:35 PM  

vudukungfu: sex0r: .  This is the equivalent of double secret probatio

It's farking grandstanding for farking votes and they ought to STFU and GBTW and fix the shait they broke.


Exactly. And it's working. While arguing over a fairly inconsequential bill that everyone knows will be passed anyway, they can avoid doing actual work and make it seem like they're doing something. They're not.

They are absolutely useless
 
2013-02-01 02:33:44 PM  
How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?
 
2013-02-01 02:33:45 PM  

GORDON: 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?


i18.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-01 02:33:54 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?

You may want to read the bill, as those questions are answered therein.


It says mandatory AIDS tests for males that are accused of a crime and that a conviction is not even needed.

Someone also calls it the all men are guilty and all women are victims act in the VAWA wiki.

Sounds like feel good legislation that also makes government a pass through entity for victim charities.
 
2013-02-01 02:34:03 PM  
I would have introduced an ammendment to change the name to Violence Against Girls Act.

Because VAG Act would be awesome.
 
2013-02-01 02:34:23 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

But why does it appear on one side of the aisle so often?

And to think it only passed when changed so some could rape brown people until they self-deported.


Look out, man.  He'll accuse you of FALSE EQUIVALENCY even when you are doing the exact opposite! (see upthread)
 
2013-02-01 02:34:25 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."


As a guy who voted for Bill Clinton, you dumb assumptions fall right in line with my comment.
 
2013-02-01 02:34:44 PM  

rustypouch: 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.


You don't know much about domestic violence, do you? Most people in those relationships won't report it because their partner has convinced them that at best no one cares, or at worst the victim will get in trouble. it's also not uniformly addressed either by laws or law enforcement; some cops are just as bad as the abusers (note I am NOT against LEOs, just facing the truth here).

I read that when NY and other states implemented a new law a couple of years ago allowing the legal system to press charges for 'choking' attacks, DV arrests went through the roof. The explanation is that it doesn't leave very visible markings so cops couldn't make an arrest in most cases; once the law passed they were able to finally do more to curb abusers.

/Never been abused (physically)
//There would be consequences to the abuser, oh yes.
 
2013-02-01 02:34:47 PM  
They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.
 
2013-02-01 02:35:08 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Holy carp. Do you eat blatant lies for breakfast?


Nope, I debunk them.
 
2013-02-01 02:35:12 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: I thought females were supposed to be "equals" right?

Why do we need "special" farking laws for females?

Or gays, or "minorities"?

Equal under the law right?

I guess farking not.

So if it's "every group for themselves", than I guess we should all just stop pretending we give a fark about anybody outside of our specific "team" right?


Wow.  You sound persecuted.  Was it because you're so farkING FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE YOU CAN'T READ THE GODDAMN THREAD TO FIND OUT THE BILL REVOLVES MOSTLY AROUND FUNDING OF SHELTERS AND PROGRAMS FOR ABUSE VICTIMS?  Yeah.  Yeah.  Pretty sure it's because you're a moron.  Moron.
 
2013-02-01 02:35:18 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling


Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.
 
2013-02-01 02:35:19 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: 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.


Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?
 
2013-02-01 02:35:41 PM  

someonelse: Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?

It funds programs that combat domestic violence and assist victims of it. Ooooh, controversial!


Do you think that lowly of women that government had to step in and tell you to that you need to start supporting victims charities?

But you didn't answer the question.
 
2013-02-01 02:36:03 PM  
why it's needed?
FUNDING!!!
 
2013-02-01 02:36:12 PM  

I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.


They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.
 
2013-02-01 02:36:29 PM  

CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?


.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

 
2013-02-01 02:36:35 PM  

kombat_unit: Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."

As a guy who voted for Bill Clinton, you dumb assumptions fall right in line with my comment.


They're called generalizations, bro.  But please, proceed governor.  I am sure we could attack your proficiency with rhetorical devices all day long.
 
2013-02-01 02:36:54 PM  

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


Read the thread - it's been explained multiple times.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:01 PM  

djh0101010: FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?

What specific points did the "farking republicans" have a problem with?  Do you know? Can you speak for those points?  It wouldn't be the first time that the, er, let's see, "farking dummycraps" (did I get that right) added some rider to a bill just to make the Republicans look bad when opposing the whole package.  "My opponent voted against blahblah", kind of tactics.

What's the whole story?  I haven't read the whole bill yet, have you?


Sort of a preemptive derp dump, eh?
Their reflexes are gone too.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:05 PM  

Treygreen13: I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.


""I'm always for the Violence Against Women bill," said Sessions who voted for a GOP alternative bill that was defeated in the Democratic-majority Judiciary Committee. But he said every time VAWA is up for reauthorization, "if you don't agree with everything that's in it, they just attack you as being anti-women."Sessions added that he was not aware until Thursday the Democrats bill extended to lesbian, gays and illegal immigrants..."

Apparently they don't know either since the farkers don't even bother to read...
 
2013-02-01 02:37:09 PM  

GORDON: I am surprised to learn that until today violence against women was legal.  huh.


Popcorn Johnny: Why should there be separate laws for women?


FirstNationalBastard: Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


Beyond the fact that only someone completely unfamiliar with the contents of the VAWA could make these claims, it is also significant that the GOP opposition to renewing this Act's funding had nothing to do with gender equality in police protection or the efficacy of its programs.

Their new-found opposition, since the basic outline is unchanged, is due to the scope of the law.  This iteration expanded protection to victims of DV in homosexual couples as well as undocumented immigrants and people on Native reservations.  Nothing to do with the fiscal calculus, nothing to do with "but what about men?" and nothing to do with "motivation" of the crimes.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:19 PM  

snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.


... domestic terrorism?
 
2013-02-01 02:37:31 PM  

Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.


Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:49 PM  

matto22: why it's needed?
FUNDING!!!



It is a known fact that aside from facts having a liberal bias, liberals do not like to use their own money for charity.
 
2013-02-01 02:37:52 PM  

djh0101010: GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.

So, you'd rather have women disarmed and waiting for government help, when being attacked?  Seriously?  I knew you were broken, but I didn't think you're THAT broken.


Clearly she needs an AR15. Now I know that Gayle Trotter wasn't able to provide an example of how an AR15 saved a woman's life (the example she used was saved by a shotgun that isn't going to be banned), but maybe you can provide us with one.
 
2013-02-01 02:38:00 PM  

kombat_unit: Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."

As a guy who voted for Bill Clinton, you dumb assumptions fall right in line with my comment.


There are no assumptions in my post.
 
2013-02-01 02:38:41 PM  

pxlboy: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

[farm5.staticflickr.com image 500x224]


Be sure.
 
2013-02-01 02:38:57 PM  

I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.


One by one, the 11/6/12 vanquished return to unload the contents of their collective Freeper Model T-4004 (B.C) anus on Fark.

//as long as they keep it on the Main page.
 
2013-02-01 02:39:11 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.


Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.
 
2013-02-01 02:39:25 PM  

namatad: Treygreen13: I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.

because obama is a black muslim?
because the teahadists?

was there another reason? could you provide a good link?


Just google "Republican Opposition to Violence Against Women Act" and look it up. Which is what you should do whether or not it's your preferred party standing in staunch opposition to the American Dreams for Children With Candy Act or the Ponies For Dying Grandmothers Act. Politics is a messy business and neither side is above trying to score political points by claiming that anyone who opposes a bill for any reason hates the people it benefits.

Most of the stuff I read shows opposition to some key language in the bill - not that Republicans necessarily hate women or gays or native americans. If they hated women and gays and native americans and wanted all women to be slaves to them, they wouldn't have passed it 3 times before.

I don't identify with the Republican Party anymore (lost touch with me a long time ago) but it's something everyone needs to learn to do - find out why a bill is opposed rather than just blindly fling spittle at anyone who opposes the Contact Lenses for Blind Nuns bill.
 
2013-02-01 02:39:53 PM  
I thought women and men were equal. Why do they need special laws?
 
2013-02-01 02:40:01 PM  

coeyagi: kombat_unit: Uranus Is Huge!: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."

As a guy who voted for Bill Clinton, you dumb assumptions fall right in line with my comment.

They're called generalizations, bro.  But please, proceed governor.  I am sure we could attack your proficiency with rhetorical devices all day long.


Don't call me bro, pal.
 
2013-02-01 02:40:05 PM  

snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.


You sound anxious to harm other Americans. Let's get this guy some guns.
 
2013-02-01 02:40:26 PM  

CruJones: CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.


This is what you decided to get butthurt over?

Geez.
 
2013-02-01 02:40:55 PM  

serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?


Amazing isn't it?

Or scrap the multi-billion dollar set-aside all together and use the 50,000+ laws against violence we already have.

This is a billion dollar political favor fund for lawyers and prosecutors who congress wants to funnel money to.  The problem is, with a name like that, it is impossible to vote against.  Politics as usual, and the sheep fall for it.  As usual.
 
2013-02-01 02:41:50 PM  

jst3p: 60 senators are pro Violence Against Women?


To be fair the women did vote for Fartbongo so this is just pay-back
 
2013-02-01 02:42:15 PM  

serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody? You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?


That's exactly what they're trying to do. Right now it's leaving off portions of our population with the LGBT community, Native Americans in/near a Reservation and undocumented immigrants. They already help Straight Men along with Straight Women.

The name of the legislature was drafted and put up 20 years ago, when there wasn't a discussion on any type of DV but male on female. As times evolve so does the legislation. Or it should.
 
2013-02-01 02:42:26 PM  

Mrtraveler01: CruJones: CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.

This is what you decided to get butthurt over?

Geez.


I'm far too hungover to be upset whatsoever by this.
 
2013-02-01 02:42:27 PM  

CruJones: CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.


Nah, it was actually quite clever. It was chosen as a way to identify people who will complain about a bill but never actually read it.
 
2013-02-01 02:42:37 PM  

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


Maybe a case could be made that they are on the right side of all the wrong issues.
How does that translate?
 
2013-02-01 02:42:47 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?

Amazing isn't it?

Or scrap the multi-billion dollar set-aside all together and use the 50,000+ laws against violence we already have.

This is a billion dollar political favor fund for lawyers and prosecutors who congress wants to funnel money to.  The problem is, with a name like that, it is impossible to vote against.  Politics as usual, and the sheep fall for it.  As usual.


At least you get to feel superior to everyone else.
 
2013-02-01 02:42:52 PM  

GoldSpider: Accused?  Really?


Accused, really.
 
2013-02-01 02:43:17 PM  

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

Maybe a case could be made that they are on the right side of all the wrong issues.
How does that translate?


As gibberish?
 
2013-02-01 02:43:22 PM  

Giltric: someonelse: Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?

It funds programs that combat domestic violence and assist victims of it. Ooooh, controversial!

Do you think that lowly of women that government had to step in and tell you to that you need to start supporting victims charities?

But you didn't answer the question.


You think you're making some sort of point, but instead you're simply coming off as deliberately obtuse. I do not think "lowly" of anybody because they are a victim of domestic violence. On account of, I'm not a total a-hole.

And your original question defies all logic and basic intelligence so badly it ate its own face. I can't even tell what it is you think you are asking. 'How does a law that provides funding to programs for domestic violence victims help people if they have to be domestic violence victims in order to benefit from it?' Jesus, I think you divided by zero.
 
2013-02-01 02:43:34 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.

You sound anxious to harm other Americans. Let's get this guy some guns.


Done all my best work without a gun, TYVM.
 
2013-02-01 02:43:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.


The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.
 
2013-02-01 02:43:50 PM  
So I guess men don't get equal protection under the law.
 
2013-02-01 02:43:58 PM  

CruJones: CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.


It isn't like misleading Bill names is a new thing.
 
2013-02-01 02:44:32 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Does no one read?


I read the farking sexist ass title and it's redundant and a waste of time.
Someone deserves to be beaiotch slapped over this.
 
2013-02-01 02:44:50 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?


czetie: IANAL nor a Constitutional expert, but my guess would be that there's nothing about it that makes it Federal business. So long as the victim can get redress in State courts, there's no reason for the Feds to be involved. There's certainly no link to interstate commerce (which would allow the appeal to the Commerce Clause); and as long as states are not violating Due Process nor Equal Protection for victims of gender-motivated violence, no cause to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment.


Under modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence, for an act to be based on the regulation of interstate commerce, the thing being regulated must be an economic act.  Such examples of economic acts include buying, selling, creating, growing, etc.

Here the acts that congress sought to regulate were not economic.  If these sections of the law that were invalidated were, say, targeted at abusing women for money or some such, then it would have passed CC muster.
 
2013-02-01 02:45:00 PM  

djh0101010: So, you're saying only shotgun-owning women are allowed to defend themselves, but women who own AR-15s deserve whatever fate the criminals want for them? Seriously?


If you can provide me with an example of a woman who used an AR15 for self-defense. Then I will retract my previous statement.
 
2013-02-01 02:45:26 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.

You sound anxious to harm other Americans. Let's get this guy some guns.


Wrong conclusion, to it you have jumped.
I suggest minimizing the inevitable harm.
 
2013-02-01 02:45:40 PM  

Treygreen13: namatad: Treygreen13: I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.

because obama is a black muslim?
because the teahadists?

was there another reason? could you provide a good link?

Just google "Republican Opposition to Violence Against Women Act" and look it up. Which is what you should do whether or not it's your preferred party standing in staunch opposition to the American Dreams for Children With Candy Act or the Ponies For Dying Grandmothers Act. Politics is a messy business and neither side is above trying to score political points by claiming that anyone who opposes a bill for any reason hates the people it benefits.

Most of the stuff I read shows opposition to some key language in the bill - not that Republicans necessarily hate women or gays or native americans. If they hated women and gays and native americans and wanted all women to be slaves to them, they wouldn't have passed it 3 times before.

I don't identify with the Republican Party anymore (lost touch with me a long time ago) but it's something everyone needs to learn to do - find out why a bill is opposed rather than just blindly fling spittle at anyone who opposes the Contact Lenses for Blind Nuns bill.


While I agree with most of that, they sure do have a tough time articulating the reasons for their opposition.  Sure, a conservative scholar like Frum might cover for them with his reasons they didn't support it, but most of the time they just whine about the cost.

Look, it's really simple - Person / Corporation / Government Institution does something stupid that hurts a lot of people (in this case, they don't enforce laws on the books to protect women): Government regulation comes in to counteract that.

If the GOP was so great about being the party of personal responsiblity, wouldn't they be preaching it to the conservatives all over the South who beat their wives (granted. it happens in the North of course too)?  In the end, the irresponsibility of the conservatives causes these regulations (especially the conservative business owner who figuratively rapes his employees when he can or polutes the environment when he can) - if they acted responsibly, if they had some god damn ethical compass, they would be fine.
 
2013-02-01 02:45:44 PM  

vudukungfu: CapeFearCadaver: Does no one read?

I read the  farking sexist ass title and it's redundant and a waste of time.
Someone deserves to be beaiotch slapped over this.


Er...
 
2013-02-01 02:45:48 PM  

vudukungfu: CapeFearCadaver: Does no one read?

I read the farking sexist ass title and it's redundant and a waste of time.
Someone deserves to be beaiotch slapped over this.


Oh for Christsake, why are you so butthurt over the title?
 
2013-02-01 02:45:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: So, you're saying only shotgun-owning women are allowed to defend themselves, but women who own AR-15s deserve whatever fate the criminals want for them? Seriously?

If you can provide me with an example of a woman who used an AR15 for self-defense. Then I will retract my previous statement.


Hell ya, let's turn this into another gun thread.
 
2013-02-01 02:46:14 PM  

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


I wouldn't hold your breath on that. He runs unopposed in his district.
 
2013-02-01 02:46:15 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?

Amazing isn't it?

Or scrap the multi-billion dollar set-aside all together and use the 50,000+ laws against violence we already have.

This is a billion dollar political favor fund for lawyers and prosecutors who congress wants to funnel money to.  The problem is, with a name like that, it is impossible to vote against.  Politics as usual, and the sheep fall for it.  As usual.


While I agree with this, it does set aside money for abuse shelters. What is your stance against women's shelters and the aid they provide as a part of a transitional period? What about offering up prosecution on behalf of victims or potential victims?
 
2013-02-01 02:46:32 PM  

I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.


As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.
 
2013-02-01 02:46:39 PM  

ImRonBurgundy: So I guess men don't get equal protection under the law.


It really is a horrific time to be a white male, we have it so rough.
 
2013-02-01 02:47:25 PM  

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

It's a set aside of a couple of billion dollars a year for the special investigation and prosecution of anyone who commits violence against women.  It is feel-good pork legislation for things that are already illegal and already prosecuted.  Most importantly, I don't understand why the entire thing isn't unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.

Holy carp. Do you eat blatant lies for breakfast?


I'm glad I wasn't the only one with that reaction.

Mrtraveler01: They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.


That sucks.  Nothing like being held hostage by a sexual and physical abuser knowing that if you run your kids are defenseless and if you report the violent criminal the authorities will deport you.  But hey, screw them and their American-citizen kids, right!  They're not really people and this isn't really civilization.  Also the "visa" was conditional on their compliance with the investigation and served only to keep them from being deported in conjunction with contact with the police absent of any other crimes.

This isn't a hypothetical situation I'm describing, this actually happens quite frequently.  I've met plenty of women in this situation while volunteering at a DV shelter.
 
2013-02-01 02:47:30 PM  
Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.
 
2013-02-01 02:47:37 PM  

the money is in the banana stand: ThrobblefootSpectre: serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?

Amazing isn't it?

Or scrap the multi-billion dollar set-aside all together and use the 50,000+ laws against violence we already have.

This is a billion dollar political favor fund for lawyers and prosecutors who congress wants to funnel money to.  The problem is, with a name like that, it is impossible to vote against.  Politics as usual, and the sheep fall for it.  As usual.

While I agree with this, it does set aside money for abuse shelters. What is your stance against women's shelters and the aid they provide as a part of a transitional period? What about offering up prosecution on behalf of victims or potential victims?


Let the Free Market sort it out!
 
2013-02-01 02:47:39 PM  
It probably pays for alpaca subsidies in Idaho
 
2013-02-01 02:48:26 PM  

GORDON: I am surprised to learn that until today violence against women was legal.  huh.


In a way, it was legal. A married woman had no recourse if her husband smacked her around a few times.  The police nor the courts would do anything to help a wife if the husband took her down a notch or two. Same goes with girlfriends.  It was, "Hey lady, man up."
 
2013-02-01 02:48:37 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.

As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.


So that was in the house bill?
 
2013-02-01 02:48:46 PM  
Did Menendez vote to end violence against American women?
 
2013-02-01 02:48:47 PM  
How many (if any) female republican senators voted 'NO' for this bill?
 
2013-02-01 02:49:41 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.


Sounds like you didn't read the law.

It's ok, we all know you're incapable of reading anyway.

We forgot to mention that the reason they had to pass this again was because it expired in 2011.
 
2013-02-01 02:49:45 PM  
I oppose the deplorable Violence Against Women Act. It is an abomination and a mark of shame.

How can you not be disgusted that so many supported the Violence Against Women Act while there was not one vote for the Violence Against Women Prevention Act ?

Farking dems should rot in hell
 
2013-02-01 02:50:02 PM  
A. Name a bill something that you can't argue against on the name alone.

B. Add a bunch of nonsense into it that's unrelated.

C. Lambast the other side when they vote against the "Save the Fluffy Bunnies and Baby Deer" bill.

(Note: I have no idea what is in this bill.)
 
2013-02-01 02:50:09 PM  

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


What I did there
prunejuicemedia.comView Full Size

Nixon would've been proud to see it
 
2013-02-01 02:50:26 PM  
I have to imagine that some of the men who are imprisoned because of this program will be in private prisons whose owners give a lot of money to Republicans.
 
2013-02-01 02:50:46 PM  

I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.

As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.

So that was in the house bill?


Oh, so you only want to discuss the House bill and the House bill only, not the Rapepublicans wide stance on Woman?

Well, I guess that's one way to make sure your statement is technically correct.
 
2013-02-01 02:51:29 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


Actually hate crime legislation is more of a backstop so the Feds can come in when an assult will not be prosecuted by racist locals. It is also ment as a derrernt for premeditated attacks based on race.
 
2013-02-01 02:51:47 PM  

coeyagi: While I agree with most of that, they sure do have a tough time articulating the reasons for their opposition. Sure, a conservative scholar like Frum might cover for them with his reasons they didn't support it, but most of the time they just whine about the cost.

Look, it's really simple - Person / Corporation / Government Institution does something stupid that hurts a lot of people (in this case, they don't enforce laws on the books to protect women): Government regulation comes in to counteract that.

If the GOP was so great about being the party of personal responsiblity, wouldn't they be preaching it to the conservatives all over the South who beat their wives (granted. it happens in the North of course too)? In the end, the irresponsibility of the conservatives causes these regulations (especially the conservative business owner who figuratively rapes his employees when he can or polutes the environment when he can) - if they acted responsibly, if they had some god damn ethical compass, they would be fine.


The problem isn't that Republicans can't articulate their opposition to it. There are several websites reporting the reasons for why Republicans oppose it this time around - some reasons good and some not. The problem is that nobody here seems to be interested in why this bill hasn't been passed this time after being passed 3 times before. Nobody really wants to discuss whether or not the Violence Against Women Act is still the best plan going forward. It's just "Republicans hate women" and "Republicans are evil."

Of course, look where I am. On Fark. Not that I expected anything more.
 
2013-02-01 02:52:01 PM  
Do people wake up in the morning and think to themselves "I'm going to try really hard to not understand things today."?
 
2013-02-01 02:52:26 PM  

topcon: (Note: I have no idea what is in this bill.)


You're not the only one, there seem to be a lot of people in here railing against this thing who have no background information on it or on what it contains.

The objections in this thread seem to be:
1) This bill is named for women, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? (Granted, the fact that women are statistically much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence always manages to be conveniently ignored)
2) I don't know what's in this bill so it must be bad
 
2013-02-01 02:52:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: So, you're saying only shotgun-owning women are allowed to defend themselves, but women who own AR-15s deserve whatever fate the criminals want for them? Seriously?

If you can provide me with an example of a woman who used an AR15 for self-defense. Then I will retract my previous statement.


Sure, let me google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ar-15+defensive+use+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf -8 &aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=fir efox-a&hs=RH3&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q= ar-15+defensive+use+example&oq=ar-15+defensive+use+example&gs_l=serp.3 ..33i21l2.6996.8122.1.8316.7.7.0.0.0.0.264.1373.2-6.6.0.les%3B..0.0... 1c.1.2.serp.TligLAoFmmo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv. 41867550,d.aWc&fp=4d739617f392435f&biw=1432&bih=898

And how about this.  I wouldn't choose an AR-15 as a defensive weapon, unless that was my only choice.  Home defense is only ONE of the legitimate reasons to own a gun.  The only reason that really applies to owning a gun, is "I'm not a criminal, don't punish me for those who are".  It's none of your business if I have my guns for protection, investment, museum pieces, engineering interest, or because I like polishing them by the light of the moon.  I'm not a criminal, like 99.999% of gun owners, I'll never BE a criminal, and my guns are no threat or concern of yours.  How DARE you ask me to justify why I want or have the guns I have.

Are you actually saying that if I can show you an example of an AR-15 used in defense by a female, then you will stop pretending that it's an evil machine created to blah blah this or that?  Really?  Because if that's the case, I'll spend the several minutes it would take.  But, somehow, I doubt you'll be convinced.

Should I waste my time on you?
 
2013-02-01 02:52:52 PM  

topcon: A. Name a bill something that you can't argue against on the name alone.

B. Add a bunch of nonsense into it that's unrelated.

C. Lambast the other side when they vote against the "Save the Fluffy Bunnies and Baby Deer" bill.

(Note: I have no idea what is in this bill.)


Let's see what's in this bill shall we:

The reintroduced Senate bill would provide services, like shelters and legal help, for victims of abuse regardless of their sexual orientation or immigration status. But it omits the original bill's modest increase in the number of special visas, known as U-visas, available to undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence and sexual assaults.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/opinion/violence-against-women-act -i s-reintroduced.html?_r=0

Yes this truly sounds like a terrible bill.
 
2013-02-01 02:52:59 PM  
are you people all really that dumb?  rhetorical question.    (Arhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply. )
 
2013-02-01 02:53:12 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do people wake up in the morning and think to themselves "I'm going to try really hard to not understand things today."?


thinking requires wor....whatever man
 
2013-02-01 02:53:31 PM  
i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.
 
2013-02-01 02:53:43 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.


Thanks for reposting.  That's a great description and I overlooked it earlier.  Maybe my quoting will help spread it.


Do you have any elaborations on how specifically it "dramatically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence"?  Is that "improved" as in put more abusers behind bars, or "improved" as in made the process easier for the victims?
Cause I'd like to register an objection on the grounds of "spending money on shiat that's not my problem".  Looks like it's not about improving efforts to prevent violent crimes, just to have the government provide reparations to the victims.  Seems to me that the only people who should be obligated to provide reparations should be the offenders, not the people at large.

The housing assistance piece of this is the only part that I see as a legitimate expense.  Domestic violence victims often live with their abuser, so you probably need to separate them.  Easy to do when the alleged abuser is in prison, but not so much while he's out on bail awaiting trial.  Theoretically you'd need housing assistance for victims of other crimes as well, but I can see a reason to allocate more funding to an unfortunately common crime.
 
2013-02-01 02:54:04 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


The Hate Crimes law adds an additional layer of penalties if the crime was done as a hate crime. In other words, if I held up a gay guy, say, that's just robbery. But if I stalked that gay guy because I hate gays, beat him up and took some money at the end for all the effort I put in, then it's robbery plus hate crime.  The point is that I'm not just targeting a person, but an entire class of people and thus putting others on alert to my hate.
 
2013-02-01 02:55:01 PM  

jaayjones: are you people all really that dumb?  rhetorical question.     (Arhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply. )


And the preview button is the button you click on when you're trying to write a condescending comment so you don't end up looking like an ass
 
2013-02-01 02:55:06 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.


Oh, look who has no fkn idea what he's talking about.

What a surprise!
 
2013-02-01 02:55:20 PM  

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


It allows American Tribal Authorities to exercise criminal prosecution  powers over Citizens of the United States but exclude the States that have the Indian Reservations on them from exercising authority on tribal lands. So it removes protection of the Federal DUE PROCESS clause and places citizens under a secular governmental authority which could one day be the UN instead of Uncle Sam-----or so I am told by the American Jehadist association.
IF this provision has been removed please show that to me as i am not sure which way I should vote on the issue when I am asked to cast my...wait...I almost outed myself as a person who cares.
 
2013-02-01 02:55:42 PM  
For those of you going "how dare the republicans try to block this!", the reason they were against it was because the Dems tried to slip some coverage in there for people who clearly could not be women, such as illegal immigrants, gays college students, and indians.
 
2013-02-01 02:56:04 PM  

djh0101010: Sure, let me google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ar-15+defensive+use+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf -8 &aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=fir efox-a&hs=RH3&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q= ar-15+defensive+use+example&oq=ar-15+defensive+use+example&gs_l=serp.3 ..33i21l2.6996.8122.1.8316.7.7.0.0.0.0.264.1373.2-6.6.0.les%3B..0.0... 1c.1.2.serp.TligLAoFmmo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv. 41867550,d.aWc&fp=4d739617f392435f&biw=1432&bih=898


So you got nothing?

djh0101010: Are you actually saying that if I can show you an example of an AR-15 used in defense by a female, then you will stop pretending that it's an evil machine created to blah blah this or that? Really? Because if that's the case, I'll spend the several minutes it would take. But, somehow, I doubt you'll be convinced.


Go for it.
 
2013-02-01 02:56:09 PM  
factoryconnection:
That sucks.  Nothing like being held hostage by a sexual and physical abuser knowing that if you run your kids are defenseless and if you report the violent criminal the authorities will deport you.  But hey, screw them and their American-citizen kids, right!  They're not really people and this isn't really civilization.  Also the "visa" was conditional on their compliance with the investigation and served only to keep them from being deported in conjunction with contact with the police absent of any other crimes.

Being a criminal robs you of the protections of society, News at 11!
Deciding to commit a crime can leave you and your loved ones in a terrible situation! Learn more in from Ric Romero's special report!

Yea, it sucks. If we had actually secured our borders and made an effort to make sure the illegals couldn't come in, and instead we had actual Mexican immigrants then we would all be better off.
 
2013-02-01 02:56:25 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Do people wake up in the morning and think to themselves "I'm going to try really hard to not understand things today."?


All I can say is I am relieved that the office is closing for the weekend in half an hour.

/had to grab a smoke, started feeling an aneurysm coming on.
 
2013-02-01 02:57:14 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.

Oh, look who has no fkn idea what he's talking about.

What a surprise!


Uh, actually, he has a point.  From what I've seen, this bill makes illegal stuff, illegaler.  It's only apparent purpose is to give democrats something to point at to say "See? My opponent even opposed THIS bill".
 
2013-02-01 02:57:20 PM  

xen0blue: For those of you going "how dare the republicans try to block this!", the reason they were against it was because the Dems tried to slip some coverage in there for people who clearly could not be women, such as illegal immigrants, gays college students, and indians.


AKA - not hetero white women
 
2013-02-01 02:57:47 PM  
Genevieve Marie:
The objections in this thread seem to be:
1) This bill is named for women, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? (Granted, the fact that women are statistically much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence always manages to be conveniently ignored)



25.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-01 02:58:25 PM  

vudukungfu: FARK the FARK out of both sides on this one.
How about a violence against PEOPLE act?
MORANS.
Sexist assholes.


Although the act has "Women" in the name, it protects people of both sexes. It was named "...Against Women..." because the preponderance of domestic violence victims are women.
 
2013-02-01 02:59:51 PM  
The Dems could have just re-upped the original bill, but they decided to go for maximum trolling by adding every politically-correct protected group (and a few unprotected ones)...and they are butthurt that the republicans told them to fark off?

Let me guess, they played "I'm not touching you" as a kid and thought it was hilarious.
 
2013-02-01 03:00:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Oh for Christsake, why are you so butthurt over the title?


Because it's Soooooooooooo patronizing to the female voter.
It's like putting a big farking Pink assed bow on it.
Look at me, I'm putting you on a pedestal.
 Vote for meeeeeee. .
 
2013-02-01 03:00:01 PM  

Dr Dreidel: kericr


I'm referring to the 60 vote filibuster-breaking rule, not the VOWA
 
2013-02-01 03:00:23 PM  

serial_crusher: Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.

Thanks for reposting.  That's a great description and I overlooked it earlier.  Maybe my quoting will help spread it.


Do you have any elaborations on how specifically it "dramatically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence"?  Is that "improved" as in put more abusers behind bars, or "improved" as in made the process easier for the victims?
Cause I'd like to register an objection on the grounds of "spending money on shiat that's not my problem".  Looks like it's not about improving efforts to prevent violent crimes, just to have the government provide reparations to the victims.  Seems to me that the only people who should be obligated to provi ...


It's not about the government providing "reparations" to victims. It's about getting victims safely out of dangerous situations- which is a fairly complex process. Abuse victims have often been made very  dependent on their abuser for everything- they generally have very little control over their own lives. Getting them out of unsafe situations requires helping them to regain control- which means setting them up with housing, helping them work through divorce proceedings and custody issues, helping them find jobs and otherwise helping them to successfully escape. It's been demonstrated that a coordinated effort- between shelters, prosecutors, family attorneys, counselors, and law enforcement has the greatest rate of success with helping victims escape.

It improved responses to some degree in both ways- it's easier to move forward with prosecution if the victim feels safe enough to press charges, and it's easier on the victim knowing that there's a support network in place.

VAWA helped provide the funds to send up that kind of coordinated response. It also provides funds for pilot programs to try other approaches, including some that focus on counseling and resources for abusers as well.

And as for spending money on shiat that isn't your problem- well, welcome to living in a civilized society.
 
2013-02-01 03:00:31 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: 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 03:00:34 PM  

djh0101010: Lionel Mandrake: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.

Oh, look who has no fkn idea what he's talking about.

What a surprise!

Uh, actually, he has a point.  From what I've seen, this bill makes illegal stuff, illegaler.  It's only apparent purpose is to give democrats something to point at to say "See? My opponent even opposed THIS bill".


You obviously didn't read the bill.

Providing funding to organizations that help men and women of domestic violence really is a terrible thing isn't it?
 
2013-02-01 03:00:38 PM  
This isn't the first time the Democrats have filled a good-sounding bill full of objectionable stuff so they can point and yell at the Republicans who rightfully vote against it.m I think the last time was a Veterans bill that was full of unrelated pork.  "ZOMG THE GOP HATES VETERANS"
 
2013-02-01 03:00:42 PM  

dericwater: Against Women..." because the preponderance of domestic violence victims are women.


Horseshait.
It's bating and marketing.
 
2013-02-01 03:00:46 PM  

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

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?


Yes.  It's currently a funding allocation bill, all the actual legal repercussions and guidelines have been ruled unconstitutional, iirc primarily because they violate equal-protection laws and clauses, but also due to concerns over whether the awards of jurisdiction were actually valid.

Current version of the bill just funds educational programs, domestic violence shelters like safeplace, etc.  In all honesty opposing the current form of the bill is pretty consistent with straight-up small government republicanism and doesn't necessarily imply anti-woman sentiment as such.  However, we're still going to mock the GOP over it because once you've had your entire party vote in favor of legalizing rape and attempt to ban birth control you don't really deserve to have the disdain of the populace ever relent.
 
2013-02-01 03:01:02 PM  

snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.


Your lawn is only yours for as long as the government says it is.
 
2013-02-01 03:01:31 PM  

dericwater: FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.

The Hate Crimes law adds an additional layer of penalties if the crime was done as a hate crime. In other words, if I held up a gay guy, say, that's just robbery. But if I stalked that gay guy because I hate gays, beat him up and took some money at the end for all the effort I put in, then it's robbery plus hate crime.  The point is that I'm not just targeting a person, but an entire class of people and thus putting others on alert to my hate.


The legislation itself isn't what bothers me, it's the kind of stupid name for it that bugs me... much like you're seeing in this thread with many people and the term "Violence Against Women Act".
 
2013-02-01 03:01:35 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.

As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.

So that was in the house bill?

Oh, so you only want to discuss the House bill and the House bill only, not the Rapepublicans wide stance on Woman?

Well, I guess that's one way to make sure your statement is technically correct.


We were discussing the bill that happens to be the subject of this thread.
 
2013-02-01 03:02:12 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: The Dems could have just re-upped the original bill, but they decided to go for maximum trolling by adding every politically-correct protected group (and a few unprotected ones)...and they are butthurt that the republicans told them to fark off?

Let me guess, they played "I'm not touching you" as a kid and thought it was hilarious.


It's funny how the GOP apologists are trying to justify this.

Apparently gay and Native American couples never have moments of domestic violence, EVER!
 
2013-02-01 03:02:32 PM  
I can see the campaign ads now, "Evil Republican Senator X voted against a bill to protect women and little puppies. Vote for Dem Senator Y, (S)he'll stand up to wife and puppy beaters"
you farking libtards are so libtardy.
 
2013-02-01 03:02:59 PM  

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Are you actually saying that if I can show you an example of an AR-15 used in defense by a female, then you will stop pretending that it's an evil machine created to blah blah this or that? Really? Because if that's the case, I'll spend the several minutes it would take. But, somehow, I doubt you'll be convinced.

Go for it.


Before I bother, let's be clear on the terms.  Is it your claim that no female, ever in history, has used an AR-15 for defensive reasons?  Additionally, when I prove that you're demonstrably wrong, will you then somehow magically stop blaming that scary black rifle platform for, well, everything?

What's the point?  You're an anti-gun idiot who blames hardware for the actions of criminals.  Why should I bother with you?  Convince me to google that for you.  Why should I care?  Why should I spend my time?  What's in it for me?

Right now, it's easier to just write you off as some anti-gun dumbass who can't be bothered with basic logic or simple research.  And then you'll pretend that me not wanting to hold your hand to show you something you'll ignore anyways, somehow equates to you being right.

What's the point? Convince me to spend time on this.  Or not, and stay ignorant.  I really don't care.  Presumably, you're some sort of an adult, and are capable of your own actions and decisions.  Yet, you're wrong on this topic. 

What's your required criteria to believe it's legitimate for females to have AR-15's please, so I can decide if it's worth the effort to meet that?
 
2013-02-01 03:03:49 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: The legislation itself isn't what bothers me, it's the kind of stupid name for it that bugs me... much like you're seeing in this thread with many people and the term "Violence Against Women Act".


The vast majority of victims of domestic violence and rape are women. The vast majority of the perpetrators are men. There are of course, many exceptions to this rule, but the title of the law reflects the reality of domestic violence and rape in this country.
 
2013-02-01 03:04:06 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


"gender-motivated violence"?  I'm... having a surprising amount of trouble defining this.  Of course if someone is assaulted, chances are very high it will be a male or female attacker, and a male or female victim.  What's this meant to "catch"?  A certain number of violent incidents are one gender on the other gender, but that hardly "motivated".  Certainly rape is gender-specific in its victims, but I'm not sure I'd say the "gender" is the motivation here.
 
2013-02-01 03:04:17 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody? You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?

That's exactly what they're trying to do. Right now it's leaving off portions of our population with the LGBT community, Native Americans in/near a Reservation and undocumented immigrants. They already help Straight Men along with Straight Women.

The name of the legislature was drafted and put up 20 years ago, when there wasn't a discussion on any type of DV but male on female. As times evolve so does the legislation. Or it should.


Is it really "leaving off" the native Americans?  From what I'm gathering in the thread, the new bill is trying to concentrate additional funding towards them rather than something more generic, like appropriating the funding based on amount of crime in a given area (which would cause Native Americans to float towards the top without unfairly bypassing other ethnic groups with high rates).

This is a common theme that I often disagree with the Democrats on.  They like to try and boil every problem down to a race/gender/religion thing because accusing their opponents of class warfare gets them votes, but in the end they're the ones making the process less fair.
Problem: poor people have a hard time getting a college education.
Reasonable solution: Give scholarships to poor people.
Unrelated correlation: black people tend to be poor.
Democrat solution: Give scholarships limited to black people.

Problem: Domestic violence victims need additional legal resources
Reasonable solution: Give domestic violence victims more resources.
Unrelated correlation: Native Americans tend to be victimized more often.
Democrat solution: Give Native American domestic violence victims more resources than white domestic violence victims.
 
2013-02-01 03:04:39 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: This isn't the first time the Democrats have filled a good-sounding bill full of objectionable stuff so they can point and yell at the Republicans who rightfully vote against it.m I think the last time was a Veterans bill that was full of unrelated pork.  "ZOMG THE GOP HATES VETERANS"


Look up who included the unrelated pork. It's astounding you still haven't caught on to that scam.
 
2013-02-01 03:05:02 PM  

I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.

As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.

So that was in the house bill?

Oh, so you only want to discuss the House bill and the House bill only, not the Rapepublicans wide stance on Woman?

Well, I guess that's one way to make sure your statement is technically correct.

We were discussing the bill that happens to be the subject of this thread.


Ah, but you brought up "Claiming that 'DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ'" is just dishonest.", and I pointed out that Republicans are, indeed, generally out to get womenz. And you suddenly only wanted to discuss one specific bill.
 
2013-02-01 03:05:06 PM  

GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.


Two are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-02-01 03:05:11 PM  

vudukungfu: Mrtraveler01: Oh for Christsake, why are you so butthurt over the title?

Because it's Soooooooooooo patronizing to the female voter.
It's like putting a big farking Pink assed bow on it.
Look at me, I'm putting you on a pedestal.
 Vote for meeeeeee. .


It was first drafted in 1994. 20 years ago. When discussions on DV happening to anyone but a woman were not occurring. Now we can talk about it. 20 years later. Get the fark over it.

/woman
 
2013-02-01 03:05:37 PM  

djh0101010: Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Are you actually saying that if I can show you an example of an AR-15 used in defense by a female, then you will stop pretending that it's an evil machine created to blah blah this or that? Really? Because if that's the case, I'll spend the several minutes it would take. But, somehow, I doubt you'll be convinced.

Go for it.

Before I bother, let's be clear on the terms.  Is it your claim that no female, ever in history, has used an AR-15 for defensive reasons?  Additionally, when I prove that you're demonstrably wrong, will you then somehow magically stop blaming that scary black rifle platform for, well, everything?

What's the point?  You're an anti-gun idiot who blames hardware for the actions of criminals.  Why should I bother with you?  Convince me to google that for you.  Why should I care?  Why should I spend my time?  What's in it for me?

Right now, it's easier to just write you off as some anti-gun dumbass who can't be bothered with basic logic or simple research.  And then you'll pretend that me not wanting to hold your hand to show you something you'll ignore anyways, somehow equates to you being right.

What's the point? Convince me to spend time on this.  Or not, and stay ignorant.  I really don't care.  Presumably, you're some sort of an adult, and are capable of your own actions and decisions.  Yet, you're wrong on this topic.

What's your required criteria to believe it's legitimate for females to have AR-15's please, so I can decide if it's worth the effort to meet that?


It's a simple question. Do you have 1 example of a female using an AR15 for self-defense?
 
2013-02-01 03:07:42 PM  

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

No.

 
2013-02-01 03:07:50 PM  

Snarfangel: The Violins Against Women Act is not very effective, since most women prefer guitars anyway.


4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-01 03:08:39 PM  

vudukungfu: dericwater: Against Women..." because the preponderance of domestic violence victims are women.

Horseshait.
It's bating and marketing.


Are you saying women are not the main targets of domestic violence?
 
2013-02-01 03:08:42 PM  

snocone: Uranus Is Huge!: snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.

Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling

Did I say that? Sounds like a fools' mission.
Something more effective, I could support.
You jump on my lawn and see what happens.





p.twimg.comView Full Size



\Fav's moran as "Real Patriot" TM
 
2013-02-01 03:10:14 PM  
"Where have all the Coward Trollls gone?" -Paula Cole

A: The Main Page.

Hey, good stuff guys, keep it up.  But Sarah Palin still won't give you a blumpkin.
 
2013-02-01 03:11:00 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.


That still doesn't explain what it DOES ....
How does it improve criminal justice and community-based responses? How did it "change the landscape" for people who suffered in silence?
 
2013-02-01 03:11:12 PM  

Giltric: Dr Dreidel: Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


You may want to read the bill, as those questions are answered therein.

It says mandatory AIDS tests for males that are accused of a crime and that a conviction is not even needed.

Someone also calls it the all men are guilty and all women are victims act in the VAWA wiki.

Sounds like feel good legislation that also makes government a pass through entity for victim charities.


Sounds like you got your answers, then - "Nothing" and "it doesn't". (It says far more than just what you cited, but I'm guessing that's the biggest quibble you could find in 15-20 minutes? NTTAWWT)

// and I really care not at all what a random wiki editor says about it - or what you think about it, for that matter
// your assumptions about the contents/focus of the bill were wrong, and now you know better
// reading is FUNdamental
 
2013-02-01 03:12:19 PM  

Genevieve Marie: [snip a bunch of reasonable stuff]


Yeah, good point.  Call it "Additional Support for Dependent Victims Act" or something equally gender neutral and make the Native-American-Specific stuff more generic, and I'll support it.
 
2013-02-01 03:13:26 PM  

GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.


More guns, less laws. The GOP - Your Wild West Party.
 
2013-02-01 03:13:40 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: 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.


That still doesn't explain what it DOES ....
How does it improve criminal justice and community-based responses? How did it "change the landscape" for people who suffered in silence?


From what I gathered, it provides funding to organizations and services tailored to victims of domestic abuse.

Why people could possibly be against that, I have no farking clue.
 
2013-02-01 03:13:46 PM  

serial_crusher: Problem: Domestic violence victims need additional legal resources
Reasonable solution: Give domestic violence victims more resources.
Unrelated correlation: Native Americans tend to be victimized more often.
Democrat solution: Give Native American domestic violence victims more resources than white domestic violence victims.


No. Not at all. You're not factoring the Reservations.

Here, there's plenty of other resources you can find through google, as well.
 
2013-02-01 03:13:52 PM  

clane: i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.


Has it occurred to you that some of us who were upset when the bill did not initially pass knew what was in the bill and approved?

I can't believe how many people here are basically running in and yelling "Guys it's a trick they don't just want to help protect women they also want to help protect gay people, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants!" and expecting progressives to be like "Oh! In that case, fark that!"
 
2013-02-01 03:14:06 PM  
FlashHarry: farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?

No.



Most generalizations are wrong, but this is fairly accurate.
ANYONE who completely falls in with the party line, and believes completely in one side or the other (Republican/Democrat)
is a farking idiot whose views should be immediately ignored.
 
2013-02-01 03:14:51 PM  

Nadie_AZ: 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.


Because it has absolutely nothing to do with commerce.
 
2013-02-01 03:16:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: What's your required criteria to believe it's legitimate for females to have AR-15's please, so I can decide if it's worth the effort to meet that?

It's a simple question. Do you have 1 example of a female using an AR15 for self-defense?


Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question?  Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right?  If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.

But again, what's the point?  You're obviously hostile to the point.  What will me showing you an example change?  Tell me that, before I bother.
 
2013-02-01 03:17:13 PM  

serial_crusher: CapeFearCadaver: serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody? You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?

That's exactly what they're trying to do. Right now it's leaving off portions of our population with the LGBT community, Native Americans in/near a Reservation and undocumented immigrants. They already help Straight Men along with Straight Women.

The name of the legislature was drafted and put up 20 years ago, when there wasn't a discussion on any type of DV but male on female. As times evolve so does the legislation. Or it should.

Is it really "leaving off" the native Americans?  From what I'm gathering in the thread, the new bill is trying to concentrate additional funding towards them rather than something more generic, like appropriating the funding based on amount of crime in a given area (which would cause Native Americans to float towards the top without unfairly bypassing other ethnic groups with high rates).

This is a common theme that I often disagree with the Democrats on.  They like to try and boil every problem down to a race/gender/religion thing because accusing their opponents of class warfare gets them votes, but in the end they're the ones making the process less fair.
Problem: poor people have a hard time getting a college education.
Reasonable solution: Give scholarships to poor people.
Unrelated correlation: black people tend to be poor.
Democrat solution: Give scholarships limited to black people.

Problem: Domestic violence victims need additional legal resources
Reasonable solution: Give domestic violence victims more resources.
Unrelated correlation: Native Americans tend to be victimized more often.
Democrat solution: Give Native American domestic violence victims more resources than white domestic violence victims.


You're right that the second one is a problem but I don't think that scholarships for black students is attempting to accomplish anything in regards to poverty and instead attempting to address the under representation of African Americans in post secondary education. I think that targeted scholarships towards any group are too little too late to actually have any measurable effect on the demographics of higher education but that is another discussion altogether.

My personal favorite is a recurring disagreement I have with my wife regarding female only scholarships. I'm a mechanical engineer and I was often unable to qualify for scholarships due to my penis. It annoyed me and my wife felt that 'engineering is a complete sausage fest they just want to encourage more femal engineers'. Well sure fine but if they don't get girls interested in physics and math in high school or earlier they will never even learn about these scholarships for engineering. They will never look for scholarships for engineers when they are studying political science or whatever. Also if it's all about a proper cross section of society why don't they have scholarships for males in what are traditionally female lines of study?
 
2013-02-01 03:17:20 PM  
Isn't this sort of shiat already illegal? What's the bill suppose to solve?
 
2013-02-01 03:17:42 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: 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...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


Yeah, when has motive ever mattered in the U.S. judicial system? Murder is murder, and assault is assault, right?
 
2013-02-01 03:18:20 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: 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.


That still doesn't explain what it DOES ....
How does it improve criminal justice and community-based responses? How did it "change the landscape" for people who suffered in silence?


Keep reading the thread. I'm all explanationed out. Genevieve Marie does a wonderful job explaining what it does as well. There's also Google, guys.
.
.
.
.
I'm leaving the office. Have a nice weekend guys.
 
2013-02-01 03:19:23 PM  

serial_crusher: Genevieve Marie: [snip a bunch of reasonable stuff]

Yeah, good point.  Call it "Additional Support for Dependent Victims Act" or something equally gender neutral and make the Native-American-Specific stuff more generic, and I'll support it.


So you're willing to judge a book by its cover.

/Dumb shiat.
 
2013-02-01 03:19:36 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.


You should repost this as much as you want because it's basically the most reasonable thing in here
 
2013-02-01 03:20:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: HellRaisingHoosier: 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.


That still doesn't explain what it DOES ....
How does it improve criminal justice and community-based responses? How did it "change the landscape" for people who suffered in silence?

From what I gathered, it provides funding to organizations and services tailored to victims of domestic abuse.

Why people could possibly be against that, I have no farking clue.


Because the Federal government has no legal authority.  Just because something is a good thing does not mean the Feds should get involved.  Our Constitution is about as farking clear about this as you can get.

Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them.  Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.
 
2013-02-01 03:20:27 PM  

djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.


Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?
 
2013-02-01 03:21:33 PM  

SilentStrider: Not unexpected with a bunch of misogynists involved.


I always laugh whenever I see the M word used on the bastion of boobies and sharp knees that is Fark.
 
2013-02-01 03:22:08 PM  

serial_crusher: make the Native-American-Specific stuff more generic, and I'll support it.


The Native American provisions in the bill are designed to specifically deal with gaps in domestic violence responses experienced by Native American women living on the reservations- it's not something that applies to the general public.

I believe one of the provisions is to allow tribal jurisdiction over non-Natives who commit crimes on Native lands. Lots of Native women get raped or assaulted on reservations by non-Native men, and the crime is hard to prosecute because of jurisdiction issues. This was meant to close that loop.

The other provision in it was simply to make sure that domestic violence services are available to women on reservations- right now, a lot of the time, programs are too far away for those women to make use of them.
 
2013-02-01 03:22:27 PM  
I remember when Pres. Bush tried to pass the "Clean Air Act", and yet people argued against it.
Hmmm, go figure.
I guess some people don't like clean air.
 
2013-02-01 03:23:12 PM  

Giltric: mandatory AIDS tests for males that are accused of a crime and that a conviction is not even needed


1) Does it say who pays for the test (yes, I am that lazy)?  Would be fair to have government foot the bill until after trial, then charge attacker if found guilty, accuser if found innocent, taxpayers if they never catch the guy.
2) Is rape-AIDS that frequent of a problem that they need to automatically test for it and not other STDs?  (insert Todd Akin parody about the body having a natural AIDS defense during legitimate rape)
 
2013-02-01 03:23:16 PM  

OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.


Zero support? You sure?
 
2013-02-01 03:23:58 PM  
A law that basically targets men, gives women the power to sue even if the man did not commit a crime?

Just a man hating law, nothing more. If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

Christ. Violence is violence. Same rules for men, and women. Get over it.
 
2013-02-01 03:24:27 PM  

mahuika: Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.

You should repost this as much as you want because it's basically the most reasonable thing in here


I may repost it over and over too.
 
2013-02-01 03:24:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.

Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?


Sure, is last week recent enough?  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-g u n-use-of-the-day-black-rifle-edition/
 
2013-02-01 03:25:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

Zero support? You sure?


Those are generic shelters.  Not shelters for victims of abuse.  There are also similiar shelters for women.  So by your argument, why don't we just eliminate the women's abuse victim shelters entirely?
 
2013-02-01 03:25:06 PM  
Is there a futile tag for any piece of legislation that doesn't involve tax cuts or more defense spending, and isn't Teabagger-approved? All sorts of things pass the Senate, for all the good it does.
 
2013-02-01 03:25:15 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: /woman


That's exactly the kind of thing this bill would prevent!
 
2013-02-01 03:25:41 PM  
Look I haven't been following this story which has been in the news for the last six months, but I SURE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT HOW BAD BOTH SIDES ARE
 
2013-02-01 03:25:44 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: Wait, so it's still legal to beat the crap out of men?


Just white men not older than 20 years from you.
 
2013-02-01 03:26:31 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.


If they didn't bother to read it the first time (or one of CapeFearCadaver's explanations) what makes you think they're going to bother now?  Some people just prefer to remain ignorant...
 
2013-02-01 03:27:04 PM  

OgreMagi: Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

Zero support? You sure?

Those are generic shelters.  Not shelters for victims of abuse.  There are also similiar shelters for women.  So by your argument, why don't we just eliminate the women's abuse victim shelters entirely?


So there isn't "zero" support, there's zero of the kind of support you want there to be. So now, cite for me sections of VAWA that prohibit funding being used for mens' domestic violence shelters.
 
2013-02-01 03:27:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: Just a man hating law, nothing more. If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.


Did you read that in Honcho?
 
2013-02-01 03:27:40 PM  

djh0101010: Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.

Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?

Sure, is last week recent enough?  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-g u n-use-of-the-day-black-rifle-edition/


Well I'll be.

It's a shame they didn't use that example in Congress this past week huh?

(Note: I'm not in favor of any bans since they are a waste of time, it's more effective to target the screening process and beef up background checks)
 
2013-02-01 03:28:00 PM  
Genevieve Marie, you are a cool broad.
Thanks for the info.

/much respect.
 
2013-02-01 03:29:01 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: adding every politically-correct protected group


actually they expanded the bill to include every group AT RISK FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
 
2013-02-01 03:29:03 PM  

elgrancerdo: Genevieve Marie, you are a cool broad.
Thanks for the info.

/much respect.


Aw, thanks.

Anytime.
 
2013-02-01 03:29:21 PM  
Okay, I realized I'm endangering both my liberal card and my woman card, but the question I've heard raised by Republicans is "violence is already against the law, why do we need another law that does the same thing?" and I wonder what the new law does that the existing one doesn't.

/please be gentle
 
2013-02-01 03:29:43 PM  
Is this the thread where morons pretend the bill didnt have a plethora of risers unrelated to women or violence?