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  
•       •       •

10836 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-01 11:44:32 AM  
farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?
 
2013-02-01 12:03:30 PM  

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


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

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


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

FlashHarry:
"drill, baby, drill?"


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

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


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

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


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

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

No.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?


From your link:

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

Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

So no knee-jerk reaction from me.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


\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?
 
2013-02-01 03:29:44 PM  

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

"drill, baby, drill?"


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


So what we are saying here is that women can serve in combat becuase they are equal but when it comes to violent crime they require special protection under the law not equal protection.  They sorta want be equal except when they can be treated special.
 
2013-02-01 03:29:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.


But not you right? You're a real manly men.

Christ you need to work at this "trolling" thing.
 
2013-02-01 03:30:04 PM  
So, what I'm getting here is that a substantial number of you folks objecting to this bill would drop your objections if it was the Domestic Violence Act (rather than the Violence Against Women Act)...have I got it right?

There you have it, go flood your republican representatives with letters and emails asking that they simply vote on a name change and ta da!

Voting against this for the name or because it now provides access to victims' services for GLBT, native peoples, college students and illegal immigrants is pathetic.  If you have a legitimate objection, go to town.

Based on the original date on the act, I expect women were named because it was assumed that they were the people most victimized.  The act itself (as has been pointed out) clearly provides funding for services to victims regardless of gender.
 
2013-02-01 03:31:03 PM  

KJUW89: 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


I've described it in pretty good detail above. This law provides the federal funding for domestic violence shelters, housing assistance, counseling programs, and for coordinated responses to domestic violence by different law enforcement agencies. It's not about making violence illegal x 2, it's about providing the funding needed to work on the problem.
 
2013-02-01 03:31:16 PM  
So, "conservatives" are OK with dumping trillions into useless wars and maintaining a ridiculously massive military, and giving use tax cuts (at the same time) to millionaire "job creators" (who create no jobs) and changing the rules when they can't legitimately win an election, but passing VAWA while Obama is President??  "NO!!  We have principles!!"

Total.  Dick.

Enjoy having some governor's in the retarded south, GOP, because soon that's all you farktards will have.  Good riddance, dickbags.
 
2013-02-01 03:31:31 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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?


So, you seem to actually care about this topic, and obviously have strong opinions.  Tell me, have you heard of Project Exile, or Project Safe Neighborhoods?

In the 1990s, in Virginia, Project Exile was put into place.  The short version of the law, is that it added 5 years of mandatory jail time for any felon who used a gun in a crime, or who was caught with a gun.  Violent crime went down 40%, and stayed there for the duration of the program.

Are you aware of this?  If not, now that you are, and can google it given the term "project exile" (so you don't accuse me of posting biased links), what do you think of it?  Would you support it, nationally?

Seems to me, a 40% reduction in violent crime by punishing bad guys, is more effective than bothering with something that only accounts for 3% of violent crime, and where the population of owners is 99%+ not the offenders.

How about you educate yourself and focus on the real problem?  Oh, by the way, even Sarah Brady and company supported Project Exile.  Weird, eh?  How about we work on common ground, and you stop blaming me for the actions of criminals, and we do something useful together.
 
2013-02-01 03:31:40 PM  

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


But what about men's rights?
 
2013-02-01 03:32:29 PM  

MyRandomName: Is this the thread where morons pretend the bill didnt have a plethora of risers unrelated to women or violence?


Name one.
 
2013-02-01 03:32:52 PM  
The article is a very misleading.  This bill passed last year with bipartisan support in both houses of Congress.  However, the bill passed by the Senate was different than that passed in the House and the filibuster was about about reconciling the differences between the two versions.

The Senate version omitted for programs aimed as homosexuals, American Indians living in reservations, and providing visas to illegal immigrant who were victims of domestic assaults.

I suspect that the Senate version opposed programs to homosexual mainly because they are older (than House members) and carry the prejudices that many in age group carry.  Not making excuses, but this is an issue that will resolve itself once the current bunch of old farts start retiring or die off, and will hopefully be a non-issue in a decade.

I suspect another key sticking point was the bills attempts to provide visas to illegals.  Personally I oppose this.  I am a criminal defense attorney and see a measurable amount of false claims of domestic violence made by people in anticipation of filing for divorce, with the goal that it will benefit them in the division of marital property.  Free visas to illegals would offer an incentive for filing false police reports and committing perjury.

/free legal advise - if you believe you are heading for a divorce always discretely hit the video record button on your smart phone, and place it in your shirt pocket, in the event your spouse attempts to start an argument with you.  It could be the difference between you being charged domestic assault and your spouse getting a false report charge.
 
2013-02-01 03:33:23 PM  

Genevieve Marie: I've described it in pretty good detail above. This law provides the federal funding for domestic violence shelters, housing assistance, counseling programs, and for coordinated responses to domestic violence by different law enforcement agencies. It's not about making violence illegal x 2, it's about providing the funding needed to work on the problem.


I'm so outraged about this!
 
2013-02-01 03:33:27 PM  
Yeap. The thread full of idiots who are unaware there were secondary amendments.

Hey everyone, ive attached a support hitler to this I love puppy bill. Why do you hate puppies!

By ignoring the actual objections you are engaging in ignorant debate. There were amendments that were opposed, not the original act.
 
2013-02-01 03:33:56 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.


Yep.  It's bad enough that we made it harder for rich old white men to rape white women, but now they're pissed we took away their brown women and college-aged interns (both male and female).  Of course they all voted against this.  They'll never get laid again.
 
2013-02-01 03:33:59 PM  

SpaceBison: Isn't this sort of shiat already illegal? What's the bill suppose to solve?

 
2013-02-01 03:34:53 PM  

MyRandomName: Yeap. The thread full of idiots who are unaware there were secondary amendments.

Hey everyone, ive attached a support hitler to this I love puppy bill. Why do you hate puppies!

By ignoring the actual objections you are engaging in ignorant debate. There were amendments that were opposed, not the original act.


Yeah, they objected to reasonable amendments.  Because they're unreasonable assholes. 

ZOMG, LGBTs will have access to VAWA-funded programs!  F*CK THE GAYS!  (What other conclusion should there be?)
 
2013-02-01 03:34:57 PM  

MyRandomName: Yeap. The thread full of idiots who are unaware there were secondary amendments.

Hey everyone, ive attached a support hitler to this I love puppy bill. Why do you hate puppies!

By ignoring the actual objections you are engaging in ignorant debate. There were amendments that were opposed, not the original act.


Which amendments? Why?
 
2013-02-01 03:34:58 PM  

someonelse: SpaceBison: Isn't this sort of shiat already illegal? What's the bill suppose to solve?


Well, try to imagine a facepalm pic.
 
2013-02-01 03:35:57 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.


That's just not true.
 
2013-02-01 03:35:57 PM  
 
2013-02-01 03:36:30 PM  

Thunderpipes: 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.


I've bet you've felt this way since 1994, right?  All of you principled "conservatives" have, right?  You just never raised your whiny-ass little girl voices in protest until now because...because...

Because why, exactly?
 
2013-02-01 03:36:34 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: 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.


Context, for more clarification I will reiterate what I said to be more clear.


Pointing to this particular act of republicans blocking this one version of the bill is dishonest as the house republicans had passed a version of this bill last year but was never reconciled.
 
2013-02-01 03:37:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: 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.



It doesn't matter if there is a prohibition or not.  There haven't been any shelters for male domestic violence victims.  Last year a California judge ruled this was discirimination so (as I understand it) there MIGHT be one finally created.  But that doesn't change the current reality.  Which is women have all kinds of resources available to them to escape an abusive relationship.  Those shelters aren't for homeless people.  They are for people escaping a bad home.  For men, the choice is to become homeless.  Do you not see the farking difference?

/clarification, "all kinds" does not necessarily mean "enough"
 
2013-02-01 03:37:07 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.


To be fair who would attack a woman holding an AR-15?
 
2013-02-01 03:37:24 PM  

someonelse: SpaceBison: Isn't this sort of shiat already illegal? What's the bill suppose to solve?

 
2013-02-01 03:37:27 PM  
OH boy, extremely vague legislation aimed at treatment of minorities! This CANT AND WONT BE ABUSED at all...ever...

You know why I would have vetoed this shiat? Because I would demand that the laws apply to all citizens equally, women, black, gay, strait, child or adult.
 
2013-02-01 03:37:35 PM  

ladyfortuna: 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.


I'm quoting a site that has quite the agenda (They're a Men's Rights Group), but the statistics stand nonetheless.
"Intimate partner homicides increased by about 60% in states with mandatory arrest laws." - Radha Iyengar, Harvard University
"Increases in the willingness of prosecutors' offices to take cases of protection order violation were associated with increases in the homicide of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females." - Laura Dugan, PhD
"Evidentiary standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty." -  Cheryl Hanna, Vermont Law School

http://www.saveservices.org/mandate-for-change/
 
2013-02-01 03:37:50 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.


Well, maybe he is.  I get the feeling he's kind of a wuss who pisses a lot of women off.
 
2013-02-01 03:39:13 PM  
Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?
 
2013-02-01 03:39:40 PM  

Genevieve Marie: 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.


That's fair.  Ideally we'd just tell the Native Americans to get over themselves and stop letting them have their own quasi-jurisdictions, but until that happens putting band-aids on top of that goofy system is the best you can do.
 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.

That's the part I find objectionable.  Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)
 
2013-02-01 03:40:54 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.


He's defining domestic violence against males to include "not having been brought a sandwich within 3 minutes of walking in the door".
 
2013-02-01 03:41:15 PM  

serial_crusher: That's the part I find objectionable. Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)


Distributing resources based on the populations most in need of the resources in question sounds fair to me.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:17 PM  

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


We need a law about reading THE GOD DAMN THREAD.

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.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:23 PM  
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:52 PM  

Virtue: Brought to you by the woman who INVENTED woman's shelters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215464/Why-I-loathe-femin is m---believe-ultimately-destroy-family.html


And is now a crazy lady who says militant feminists killed her dog, tangled her Christmas lights, and won't get off her lawn.
 
2013-02-01 03:41:55 PM  

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.
 
2013-02-01 03:42:19 PM  

MyRandomName: Yeap. The thread full of idiots who are unaware there were secondary amendments.

Hey everyone, ive attached a support hitler to this I love puppy bill. Why do you hate puppies!

By ignoring the actual objections you are engaging in ignorant debate. There were amendments that were opposed, not the original act.


Do you actually have examples or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again as usual?
 
2013-02-01 03:43:13 PM  

Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.


Or.... let's try this again... now bolded for morons....

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.


 
2013-02-01 03:44:06 PM  

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Another one who doesn't know what the fk he's talking about!

Yes, princess, this means violence against men if perfectly OK.

morans
 
2013-02-01 03:44:45 PM  

StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?


Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?
 
2013-02-01 03:44:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

But not you right? You're a real manly men.

Christ you need to work at this "trolling" thing.


Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.
 
2013-02-01 03:45:13 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.



286 independent peer reviewed studies.....http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
 
2013-02-01 03:45:31 PM  

mahuika: 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!"


help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?  help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?  hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?
 
2013-02-01 03:45:46 PM  

serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)


But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.
 
2013-02-01 03:46:27 PM  

Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.


People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.
 
2013-02-01 03:46:51 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: 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".


Well you could also call it "terrorism" because the idea of these crimes is to terrorize an entire segment of the population. But, of course, we all know that only brown people can be "terrorists".
 
2013-02-01 03:47:23 PM  

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


"Cost benefit analyses" and "effectiveness studies" are just tools wife beaters use to avoid justice.

Anybody who didn't vote for VAWA is objectively pro-rape. As is anyone who disagrees with this post.
 
2013-02-01 03:48:05 PM  

OgreMagi: Do you not see the farking difference?


I'm arguing that it's a distinction without a difference. If men can get access to shelters, I'd say it doesn't much matter whether they're VAWA-funded or not. So long as you're safely away from your abuser, the fight is at least 40-50% won.

At that point, they're getting "some" support. Not "zero", as you initially claimed.

// hell, an iota of support - a kind word, for example - is more than "zero", so I don't have a high bar to clear
// but I'm better than that
// getting out the door and out of immediate harm's way does more for psychological "shelter" than four simple walls do
 
2013-02-01 03:48:12 PM  
Did they doublecheck the bill for any 'no abortions for rape babies' amendments or other derp chicanery?
 
2013-02-01 03:48:32 PM  

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

But not you right? You're a real manly men.

Christ you need to work at this "trolling" thing.

Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.


When those classes of people stop being victimized simply because of being those classes of people by assholes and filth who feel the need to victimize those classes of people because of their petty evil reasons, then we can stop making special laws for them.
 
2013-02-01 03:49:33 PM  

Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?


We hate you, too, honey.
 
2013-02-01 03:49:35 PM  

coeyagi: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.

Or.... let's try this again... now bolded for morons....

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.


At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws

Although there is merit in the argument that many Republicans oppose it just because they oppose anything Obama does, and that some just don't want gays to be covered by it. But there appear to be some legitimate concerns. I also understand why the additional amnesty for illegal immigrants that report domestic violence is a major sticking point that had to be dropped to get broad support.
 
2013-02-01 03:50:48 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.


IANAL, but seems like it's OK to discriminate on the basis of gender as long as you show there's a good reason.

Why we need the Equal Rights Amendment

"The [Virginia Military Institute] decision now tells courts to exercise 'skeptical scrutiny' requiring 'exceedingly persuasive' justification of differential treatment on the basis of sex, but prohibition of sex discrimination is still not as strongly enforceable as prohibition of race discrimination."
 
2013-02-01 03:51:10 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.


Here's a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true.  I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up.  Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.

Straus and Gelles found that in couples reporting spousal violence, 27% of the time the man struck the first blow; in 24% of cases, the woman initiated the violence. The rest of the time, the violence was mutual, with both partners brawling. The results were the same even when the most severe episodes of violence were analyzed. In order to counteract claims that the reporting data was skewed, female-only surveys were conducted, asking females to self-report, and the data was the same.
 
2013-02-01 03:51:47 PM  
Okay call me naive-- but where in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to pass criminal laws of this nature, or to fund anti-domestic violence centers?

I'm not saying I oppose such laws or such measures-- but aren't those inherently state functions?

Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free. Whether you pay for it or your city or the state does or the Feds do-- someone is paying for for it. Clapping your hands together and applauding congress for "fighting domestic violence" ignores the fact that it's this sort of unconstitutional pandering to special interest groups that put us in a position where the USG owes itself trillions of dollars.

Don't blame congress for the country's economic clusterfark, blame people who support feel good, unnecessary, porkulicous legislation.

Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.
 
2013-02-01 03:52:43 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.


Informing oneself might lead to actual participation in the democratic process, and that, sir, is un-Amurricun!
 
2013-02-01 03:52:43 PM  

clane: mahuika: 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!"

help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?


So what, you think that Gloria Steinem woke up one day, stuck her head out her window and yelled "FEMINISM", and since then America's been a bastion of equality?

help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?

More right to do what?

hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?

Schools cost a lot of money, let's get rid of them too.
 
2013-02-01 03:52:45 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.


Indeed.

i243.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-01 03:53:01 PM  

nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.


No...no we don't.

I'd rather not have him wreck the global economy by pegging our currency to a shiny rock thankyouverymuch.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:08 PM  
So, none of the concerned "conservatives" in here are going to explain why something that's been around for almost 20 years is now suddenly a big, terrible thing?

There is a reason, right?
 
2013-02-01 03:53:40 PM  
So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?
 
2013-02-01 03:53:43 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.


286 independent peer reviewed studies.....http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Admirable attempt at a Gish Gallop. I give it 6/10.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:54 PM  

OgreMagi: You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true.  I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up.  Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.


See the .edu link I posted for a glossography of more studies.
 
2013-02-01 03:53:59 PM  

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Do you not see the farking difference?

I'm arguing that it's a distinction without a difference. If men can get access to shelters, I'd say it doesn't much matter whether they're VAWA-funded or not. So long as you're safely away from your abuser, the fight is at least 40-50% won.

At that point, they're getting "some" support. Not "zero", as you initially claimed.

// hell, an iota of support - a kind word, for example - is more than "zero", so I don't have a high bar to clear
// but I'm better than that
// getting out the door and out of immediate harm's way does more for psychological "shelter" than four simple walls do


If it's a distinction without a difference, then why does there need to be special funding just for abused womens shelfters?  I'll answer that for you.  Because sometimes there are children involved.  It's not just the man or woman who needs to escape an abusive person, the children might need to escape.  The specialized shelters are designed to handle the children, too.  Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?
 
2013-02-01 03:54:29 PM  
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long
 
2013-02-01 03:55:02 PM  

nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.


ooooh my god the main page is adorable
 
2013-02-01 03:55:14 PM  

clane: mahuika: 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!"

help protect women?  i thought we were all equal?  help protect gays?  why do gays get more right than me and my family?  hmm and it will cost about 1.2  billion but hey whats money?


Gays "get more rights"? No, they're getting the exact same rights you and your family already have, the same rights denied to them because people like you hate and fear them for loving people with the same sex organs. You can marry who you want to, correct? You can see your wife and family in the hospital, correct? You can leave your stuff to your kids when you die, correct? You can work anywhere and not be harassed and fired because of your sexual orientation, correct? How are those normal rights for you but "Special rights" for them?

If people like you weren't forcing them to do this, then women, gays, and minorities wouldn't need "special rights" or special protections.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:22 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?


Because you can't read THE GOD DAMN THREAD.

//Seriously, just try people, instead of barfing your ignorance upon us.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:25 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.


Such inequalities can be addressed without specifying a group of people. For instance, equal pay:
A law that says something to the effect of, "experience, duties, and performance are the only metrics by which you can differentiate pay rate," is a hell of a lot more egalitarian than, "women must make at least as much as men." The first one addresses the problem dynamically. If there's a field where women are paid more, it helps men. If there's a field where straight folks are paid more, it helps gays. The second one, helps a group that may or may not be on the lesser (or greater) side of an inequality with no attention to context. It also-adjusts for changing social conditions w/o having to stack more and more laws every time you want to add a new 'protected' group.

The most generic form of the problem is the one to address; not throwing laws at subsets until it sort of seems like the whole is vaguely addressed.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:28 PM  

Thunderpipes: Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.

There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.

Grow some balls.

Are you all for treating men the same when it comes to say.... life and auto insurance? Maternity leave? Nicer bathrooms? Child support? Divorce?


You do realize rape shield laws work in reverse too, right? That a man who reports a rape will not have his name revealed in the media? That a woman falsely accused of rape would have  the same hassle?

You don't think about it that way though because in this world, rape is much more often committed against women- and often, when it's committed against men, it's by another man. Women rapists DO exist, but not in nearly the same number.

As far as life and auto insurance- I'd be absolutely fine with dropping gender from the actuarial tables, but that would require regulating private business pretty extensively. How do you feel about that?

And as for maternity leave- OF COURSE I support paid paternity leave as well. Most feminists do. Honestly, the way Sweden handles it would be ideal- 16 months paid per couple to be split however they choose.

As far as child support and divorce laws go- I do support gender equality there. But my idea of equality is actual equality, and not "Stupid biatch ruined my life so I should get to ruin hers" which is generally how those conversations devolve on the internet.
 
2013-02-01 03:55:43 PM  

nickdaisy: Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free.


No. There isn't. But you can argue against a position that doesn't exist if you want.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:36 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?


Because you touch yourself.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:38 PM  
CRS VAWA Report 2010

Provided for everyones situational awareness

Looks like there was already (some) inclusion of illegal immigrant and native american issues. Though the Act has gender neutral language it is probably a good idea to update to reflect the inclusion of LGBT protections.

I hope this gets resolved (passed) soon and both sides of the aisle put at least this much effort to passing a budget.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:45 PM  

Thunderpipes: There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.


The same is true if a dude accuses another dude of rape. Or if a man accuses a woman of rape. Remember the cop in...NM? a few months ago charged with sexual harassment? We all knew her name - even had a whole thread about it. It's not about their genders/sexes/genitalia, it's about who is accusing whom of what.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:54 PM  
ParallelUniverseParking: 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 -Somalia.
 
2013-02-01 03:56:54 PM  
Wait, I'm confused. Why would anyone vote for violence against women? Truly, we live in an evil patriarchy.
 
2013-02-01 03:57:38 PM  
I hope subby get's tossed out of his house and separated from his kids over a false DV accusation made by a vindictive spouse.  You won't think it's so spiffy then.

VAWA is a bad bill which ignores all the facts about domestic violence.
 
2013-02-01 03:58:18 PM  
In other news, Fark researchers discover that the user base is so vapid and emotionally reactive that they will vilify folks for voting against the 'Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013' 

The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:07 PM  

Genevieve Marie: As far as child support and divorce laws go- I do support gender equality there. But my idea of equality is actual equality, and not "Stupid biatch ruined my life so I should get to ruin hers" which is generally how those conversations devolve on the internet


As an aside, in today's day and age, an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek primary custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:13 PM  

OgreMagi: Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?


I am suggesting, as I did in my OP, that there is more than "zero" support for male victims of abuse.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:22 PM  

dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.


Got a citation for us?
 
2013-02-01 03:59:41 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.


The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib
 
2013-02-01 04:00:08 PM  
Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.
 
2013-02-01 04:00:18 PM  

doubled99: Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long


"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies.
 
2013-02-01 04:00:27 PM  
Holy crap did this thread enter derpland fast. I made it 1/3rd through it before I had to stop.

"But violence against women is already illegal!"
"I don't know what's in this thing, but... DEMOCRAPS! I'm against it!"
"Oh, so Republicans are the only bad guys now? Both sides are bad!"


Jesus Christ, how do you guys manage to operate a computer or phone?
 
2013-02-01 04:00:44 PM  

johnny_vegas: both sides of the aisle put at least this much effort to passing a budget.


why, exactly
 
2013-02-01 04:00:58 PM  

Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib


OK, Corky, have a great day!
 
2013-02-01 04:01:34 PM  

Treygreen13: At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws


You should do some research on Christina Villegas and the "Independent Woman's Forum". It's a conservative think tank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she might not have a good point- I don't have time right now to follow through all of her citations and see how good they are- but it does mean that I'd approach what she says with caution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Women%27s_Forum
 
2013-02-01 04:01:43 PM  

Jackson Herring: nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.

ooooh my god the main page is adorable


I believe the term is 'youtubesque'.
 
2013-02-01 04:01:48 PM  

masintenn: I hope subby get's tossed out of his house and separated from his kids over a false DV accusation made by a vindictive spouse.  You won't think it's so spiffy then.

VAWA is a bad bill which ignores all the facts about domestic violence.


You studied it out.
 
2013-02-01 04:02:16 PM  

OgreMagi: Here's a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true. I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up. Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.


This has got to be some kind of satire. You're making fun of people who post absurd things like "the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women", by subtly linking to something that thoroughly dismisses that claim, right?
 
2013-02-01 04:02:37 PM  
so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?
 
2013-02-01 04:03:26 PM  

Aeon Rising: The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47.


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME


 No they don't.

Any more shiatty strawmen you'd like to build for us? It's easy to be against something you can imagine in your head.
 
2013-02-01 04:03:40 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: /woman


Man.
/Victim of domestic violence,
//no shelters for us.
///but keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-02-01 04:03:59 PM  
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies


...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.
 
2013-02-01 04:04:09 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib

OK, Corky, have a great day!


Hmm, it's not nice to insult someone by comparing them to someone with Down's Syndrome. That's pretty shiatty, actually. I take it you've never actually KNOWN anyone with Down's, or you wouldn't be so flip about it. The guy who played Corky is probably 50x smarter than you are, jackhole.
 
2013-02-01 04:05:00 PM  

USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?


So if a white male like me is a victim of domestic violence, I won't be protected by this law?

Well that sounds awful.
 
2013-02-01 04:06:08 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws

You should do some research on Christina Villegas and the "Independent Woman's Forum". It's a conservative think tank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she might not have a good point- I don't have time right now to follow through all of her citations and see how good they are- but it does mean that I'd approach what she says with caution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Women%27s_Forum


Interesting link. I have reservations about some of the things they do, but some of it seems acceptable. Hard to say definitively whether or not they're allowed to have an opinion on the issue without some more in-depth research on them.
 
2013-02-01 04:06:15 PM  
Seriously, when are white christian males going to get THEIR day in the sun?
 
2013-02-01 04:06:30 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: 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.


VAWA expired a while ago.  It didn't need to be replaced because new laws have been enacted which basically provide the same or better protections.  It's not as if this is a purely federal issue, the states to a pretty good job of having laws regarding violence against women, and they don't run afoul of commerce clause concerns.
 
2013-02-01 04:07:00 PM  

vudukungfu: Man.
/Victim of domestic violence,
//no shelters for us.


Maybe this bill can help us out huh?

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/crosby/16344481-418/male-stabbin g- victim-finds-shelter-finally.html
 
2013-02-01 04:07:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?


I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.
 
2013-02-01 04:08:34 PM  

gameshowhost: Biological Ali: 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.

That's just not true.

He's defining domestic violence against males to include "not having been brought a sandwich within 3 minutes of walking in the door".


Exactly where is the shelter for male victims of domestic violence near you? They certainly don't stay at the WOMEN'S shelter. At best they may find space at the Salvation Army if the weather is not too bad.
 
2013-02-01 04:08:37 PM  

Treygreen13: Interesting link. I have reservations about some of the things they do, but some of it seems acceptable. Hard to say definitively whether or not they're allowed to have an opinion on the issue without some more in-depth research on them.


They're certainly allowed their opinion, I just would probably scrutinize it pretty carefully. One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

Basically, her article may have some fair points to it and I'll probably put in some time later and follow through some of it to see, but it was most certainly put forward by a group that has a very definite agenda.
 
2013-02-01 04:09:04 PM  

someonelse: nickdaisy: Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free.

No. There isn't. But you can argue against a position that doesn't exist if you want.


Then how about the simple fact that an unconstitutional exercise of authority by a central government is troublesome?

When you vest complete power in one entity you risk that power being abused. We allowed the Feds to create a retirement system without a constitutional grant of authority and (allegedly) this created a beneficial Social Security system. We allowed them to tell private business owners who they could and couldn't serve food to and it hastened a decline in racism. Those successes are laudable.

But recently the Feds have also decided they have the authority to detain and even execute citizens without due process-- can you see why this might be super slippery, terrifying slope?

If people really wanted a Social Security system, or the Civil Rights Act, or this silly law, then pass an amendment and grant that authority to the USG. Otherwise you're just saying "we trust you-- no need to base your exercise of power in the constitution-- keep us safe oh wise ones!"

All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.

Is that your idea of a free society?

Does anyone know where I can get one of Ron Paul's toenails so we can commence the cloning process and save this great Republic?
 
2013-02-01 04:09:10 PM  

Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib


- So liberals believe that all guns should be banned AND that the only thing stopping rampages is guns?
- Killing terrorists and helping countries throw off dictators = "thinking 'brown' people are helpless"?
- On the one hand liberals killed Osama bin Laden and every one of his second-in-commands each time they pop up, and on the other hand they don't feel that Islam should be reacted to with the burning white-hot hatred and rage conservatives do.
- I thought it was conservatives who wanted to raise taxes on the middle- and lower-class while abolishing taxes for the rich?
 
2013-02-01 04:09:44 PM  

Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.


Oh, I thought he was talking about the VAWA. But I should've known he was just wasting bandwidth.
 
2013-02-01 04:11:49 PM  

GoldSpider: Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.


And if it does, I hope my senators voted against it.  I like women, and any bill supporting violence against them is definitely not ok!
 
2013-02-01 04:11:49 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.


Because false premises are self evident. I can just as easily question why the dems have been so callous and hateful by not being as inclusive up to this altered bill.
 
2013-02-01 04:12:38 PM  

doubled99: Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies

...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.


Oh, I'm so sorry, did pointing out the people who are screaming "THIS BILL MEANS IT'S OKAY TO BE VIOLENT TOWARDS MEN! SPECIAL RIGHTS! EQUALITY IS INEQUALITY! LIBS LIBS LIBS LIBS!" as obvious trolls, shills, and retards strike a nerve? Should I be more gentle next time?
 
2013-02-01 04:12:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.

Oh, I thought he was talking about the VAWA. But I should've known he was just wasting bandwidth.


Actually, now that I look at again, I can't tell for sure either. The post wasn't written very clearly.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:42 PM  

Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.


I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:50 PM  

nickdaisy: All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.


Especially since state government is free of bureaucracy and abuse of power.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:55 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.


FTFY.
 
2013-02-01 04:14:24 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Because false premises are self evident.


What's the real premise?
 
2013-02-01 04:14:51 PM  

untaken_name: Hmm, it's not nice to insult someone by comparing them to someone with Down's Syndrome. That's pretty shiatty, actually. I take it you've never actually KNOWN anyone with Down's, or you wouldn't be so flip about it.


Boy, you know all about me, don't you?
 
2013-02-01 04:15:44 PM  

OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic


OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.


These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.
 
2013-02-01 04:16:04 PM  

someonelse: USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?

No. But go ahead and pretend that your toddler-level understanding of the issue is correct. It's easier that way.


And Republicans oppose it just because they're Republicans, that isn't toddler level? The article offers nothing.
 
2013-02-01 04:16:36 PM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Lionel Mandrake: Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.

Because false premises are self evident. I can just as easily question why the dems have been so callous and hateful by not being as inclusive up to this altered bill.


wat

I asked why, after 20 years, it is now suddenly a horrible thing.

Try to answer the question asked, not the question you wish you'd been asked.
 
2013-02-01 04:18:13 PM  

Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.


I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.
 
2013-02-01 04:19:38 PM  

Genevieve Marie: I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of resentment towards women


To be fair, that's generally true of any group of men.
 
2013-02-01 04:19:45 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Another men rights group:

www.bundyology.com
 
2013-02-01 04:19:53 PM  
Comic Kathleen Madigan had a bit about how, if she were a politician, she'd name her bills something like 'The be nice to retarded people bill' so that her opponents wouldn't dare vote against it.
Wonder of the person who named this bill saw that set?
 
2013-02-01 04:20:20 PM  

someonelse: nickdaisy: All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.

Especially since state government is free of bureaucracy and abuse of power.


So you'd prefer to allow a supreme authority to rule on the issue? Doesn't the idea of a monopoly of power frighten you? Wouldn't it make sense to vest the federal government only with a few, specific, absolutely necessary national authorities, knowing that over time all three branches would inevitably seek to consolidate power?

Perhaps you'd prefer we make things really efficient and just get rid of all the clutter of the courts and the legislature. We could just have one wise, capable leader guide the way. He could even pick his own successor. Would that be progressive enough for you?

We need you Ron Paul-- save us before we all turn into king worshipping zombies.
 
2013-02-01 04:20:30 PM  
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies

...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.

Oh, I'm so sorry, did pointing out the people who are screaming "THIS BILL MEANS IT'S OKAY TO BE VIOLENT TOWARDS MEN! SPECIAL RIGHTS! EQUALITY IS INEQUALITY! LIBS LIBS LIBS LIBS!" as obvious trolls, shills, and retards strike a nerve? Should I be more gentle next time?


Thank god you're here to point out the faults of others' posts. It's a real breath of fresh air.
 
2013-02-01 04:21:24 PM  
Ignoring every blithering moron who said anything like "I thought violence was already illegal" or "What about violence against men?" makes this thread a lot more readable. Of course it also cuts the length nearly in half.
 
2013-02-01 04:21:55 PM  
this thread is causing my eyebrows to climb completely over my head and onto the back of my neck
 
2013-02-01 04:22:10 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?


I think that some people feel that the law promotes a feminist agenda and doesn't do enough to address the causes of domestic violence against women.

Some also feel that it ends up creating a climate of suspicion where all men are feared and viewed as violent  and abusive and all women are viewed as victims.

Some also think that the law generates a frequent denial of civil liberties to those that are accused of domestic violence.

Finally, I think that some believe that there is no evidence that the act has lessened the incidence of domestic violence and that it is a huge waste of money.

Some believe this.  Not me.  Some.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:23 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:49 PM  

Jackson Herring: this thread is causing my eyebrows to climb completely over my head and onto the back of my neck


Those might be caterpillars.
 
2013-02-01 04:22:49 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Violence against anyone is violence, women do not need there own set of laws.


... and we're back to the same derp that was clearly debunked hours ago. You must have to actually work at being this obtuse. This is too much whargarbl for a Friday afternoon.

Never give up the fight, no matter how little you understand about it, potato-page posters!
 
2013-02-01 04:23:03 PM  

Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.


As a longtime Ohio resident, I'm waiting for Boehner to introduce a bill with that exact title.
 
2013-02-01 04:23:22 PM  

nickdaisy: So you'd prefer to allow a supreme authority to rule on the issue? Doesn't the idea of a monopoly of power frighten you? Wouldn't it make sense to vest the federal government only with a few, specific, absolutely necessary national authorities, knowing that over time all three branches would inevitably seek to consolidate power?


You know the Articles of Confederation was a failure right?

nickdaisy: We need you Ron Paul-- save us before we all turn into king worshipping zombies.


Yeah, we need Ron Paul to wreck our economy by bringing back the Gold Standard!
 
2013-02-01 04:23:35 PM  
Not surprising with those:

www.mediaite.com
 
2013-02-01 04:24:03 PM  
I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of resentment towards women

and yet I'm sure the irony here is lost...
 
2013-02-01 04:24:22 PM  

mahuika: serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)

But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.


Exactly.  Schools are allocated according to their need.  If some new trend sprung up among young professionals to start reproducing at a younger age without moving to the suburbs, we wouldn't need a specific initiative to build more schools in those neighborhoods.  The existing algorithm should just notice that the concentration of children in that area is increasing, and add schools accordingly.
Same with domestic violence shelters.  Build them in areas where victims congregate, not where a specific class of victims congregates.

Maybe I'm being naive to apply computer science concepts to politics, but special cases should be avoided.
 
2013-02-01 04:26:15 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Well you're certainly free to be skeptical due to your past experiences. I tend to not be involved with communities that stand in opposition to my beliefs. I know there are some groups out there that advocate the rights of men that do admirable work. Near me is a firm that is an advocate for the rights of fathers in divorce proceedings. Maybe deep down inside they're actually a bunch of misogynist lady-haters, but overall they seem like they're working towards equality and the stuff I read about them is impressive. It would also seem that they'd sort of have to have many clients that resent women... since they're apparently involved with a divorce with a woman they resent and want to gain custody of their children in spite of her wishes.

I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.
 
2013-02-01 04:29:45 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.

Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.


The thing is- in order to present them as totally equal arguments, you have to pretend that the bulk of human history hasn't happened. Women have been historically shortchanged in a lot of ways- we're still pretty drastically underrepresented if you compare government representation to the general population. Things have improved quite a bit, but feminism does tend to focus on overcoming historical inequalities and on changing the way women participate in our culture.
 
2013-02-01 04:30:00 PM  

USP .45: someonelse: USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?

No. But go ahead and pretend that your toddler-level understanding of the issue is correct. It's easier that way.

And Republicans oppose it just because they're Republicans, that isn't toddler level? The article offers nothing.


Romneycare: no one said a peep about it when Romney installed it in Massachusetts. But the moment Obama proposed it for the country, Republicans went insane demonizing it, declaring it socialism, calling it unconstitutional. Then Romney said he would tear down Romneycare... and put it right back up. But it would be okay, because a Republican proposed it.

Republicans also have a colorful history of the past four years with opposing things that they themselves proposed and endorsed because Obama or another prominent Democrat happened to like and endorse it, too. Let's also not forget "The number-one job is to ensure that Obama is a one-term president."- McConnell.
 
2013-02-01 04:30:16 PM  

serial_crusher: mahuika: serial_crusher: Make a general framework that distributes resources fairly, rather than just targeting the part that's currently having problems (so we don't end up in the same situation in a few years if cultural winds shift and "people in suburbs with streets named after trees" suddenly become the unlucky folks who have to drive a couple hours to get to the shelter)

But that's kind of what we already do. Distributing something fairly doesn't always mean equally. A neighborhood with a lot of kids is going to have four elementary schools, whereas a neighborhood in which a lot of single young professionals live might have one.

Exactly.  Schools are allocated according to their need.  If some new trend sprung up among young professionals to start reproducing at a younger age without moving to the suburbs, we wouldn't need a specific initiative to build more schools in those neighborhoods.  The existing algorithm should just notice that the concentration of children in that area is increasing, and add schools accordingly.
Same with domestic violence shelters.  Build them in areas where victims congregate, not where a specific class of victims congregates.

Maybe I'm being naive to apply computer science concepts to politics, but special cases should be avoided.


I don't know enough about sociology, but there might be a case for randomizing the location a bit. Otherwise you might create a feedback loop where the shelter draws in people from the surrounding area, so they build more shelters, which attracts more people from the surrounding area, goto 10. I'm not sure what they'd be, but I get the feeling that creating a massive concentration of victims in one spot could have some sort of side effects.
 
2013-02-01 04:31:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Because false premises are self evident.

What's the real premise?


His? All things republican is bad.

Again, that was quite evident. The bills? Just more charity disguised as legislation. No one wants more battered domestic partners, excluding the batterers I presume, but to label any objection evil as has been done is purely politics.
 
2013-02-01 04:32:10 PM  

Treygreen13: I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.


I got that from the beginning and definitely didn't think you were arguing otherwise.

And yea, a law firm like the one you described doesn't bother me at all. That's legitimate. I was talking more about Men's Rights communities online- they tend to devolve pretty quickly into some ugly behavior. They show up and harass progressive women bloggers a lot.
 
2013-02-01 04:33:46 PM  
*sigh*
Part of me wants to go nuclear on this thread with the ignore button but I'm starting to feel like it would be very very quiet in here.
 
2013-02-01 04:35:06 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I don't know enough about sociology, but there might be a case for randomizing the location a bit. Otherwise you might create a feedback loop where the shelter draws in people from the surrounding area, so they build more shelters, which attracts more people from the surrounding area, goto 10. I'm not sure what they'd be, but I get the feeling that creating a massive concentration of victims in one spot could have some sort of side effects.


Well, you'd have to exclude already-reallocated victims from the algorithm.  Just measuring the number of new accusations xor convictions in a time interval should be sufficient.  That is, unless you start a trend of people being attacked within the shelter, but then you've got bigger problems to worry about.
 
2013-02-01 04:35:21 PM  

GoldSpider: Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.


Well, considering it was first enacted in 1994, you've had a couple of decades to educate yourself. And the new changes have been covered on Fark, or there's always Google.
 
2013-02-01 04:36:08 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: I do hope, however, that you don't believe that I think many Republicans aren't opposed to this for the wrong reason. I'm sure plenty of them are against it just because it helps illegals or whatever. My original comment was that people should find out more about the bill before just groaning about Republicans liking violence.

I got that from the beginning and definitely didn't think you were arguing otherwise.

And yea, a law firm like the one you described doesn't bother me at all. That's legitimate. I was talking more about Men's Rights communities online- they tend to devolve pretty quickly into some ugly behavior. They show up and harass progressive women bloggers a lot.


I imagine so. I think it would be a nightmare trying to run any sort of group that diametrically opposes another group online without getting the militant angry morons in your userbase.
 
2013-02-01 04:36:08 PM  

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?

I am suggesting, as I did in my OP, that there is more than "zero" support for male victims of abuse.


Those "men's shelters" you were so quick to post about typically are not equipped to deal with children.  That was one of the reasons the judge I mentioned ruled the the current system in California is disciminatory.
 
2013-02-01 04:37:01 PM  

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.

Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.

The thing is- in order to present them as totally equal arguments, you have to pretend that the bulk of human history hasn't happened. Women have been historically shortchanged in a lot of ways- we're still pretty drastically underrepresented if you compare government representation to the general population. Things have improved quite a bit, but feminism does tend to focus on overcoming historical inequalities and on changing the way women participate in our culture.


I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.

Hah, serial_crusher should like this:
current equality is the proportional term
feminism is the integral term
men's rights is the derivative term
 
2013-02-01 04:38:35 PM  

Lost Thought 00: ITT - people who have not read the bill and don't realize that it covers everyone, including straight white men


But, it takes effort to actually understand something you have an opinion on! Who has time for that? I let Fox News infrom me.
 
2013-02-01 04:39:17 PM  
Is it for or against violence against women?
 
2013-02-01 04:39:41 PM  

jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.


The studies show that my first statement is true.

Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this.  Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.
 
2013-02-01 04:40:19 PM  
Well, this escalated quickly.
 
2013-02-01 04:41:23 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Well, this escalated quickly.


Even funnier with your handle.
 
2013-02-01 04:42:39 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.


Exactly- but that's what I mean about protesting loss of privilege versus actual structural inequality. Men's Rights groups are reacting to what they feel like is an assault on their rights. That's a misconception though.
 
2013-02-01 04:42:57 PM  

OgreMagi: jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.

The studies show that my first statement is true.


Show me one credible study that shows that men are victims "just as often".
 
2013-02-01 04:43:45 PM  

OgreMagi: jst3p: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic

OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.

These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.

The studies show that my first statement is true.

Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this.  Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.


And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.
 
2013-02-01 04:45:09 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.


It was named a long time ago, and now they can't alter it. Tradition or something.
 
2013-02-01 04:46:10 PM  

nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.


That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.
 
2013-02-01 04:46:35 PM  

PsiChick: 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.

It was named a long time ago, and now they can't alter it. Tradition or something.


Meh, it's not even a big deal. It would be good, however, as to advertise that other people are protected under that law.
 
2013-02-01 04:49:25 PM  

jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.


A Ron Paul blog is equally as valid right?
 
2013-02-01 04:52:00 PM  

OgreMagi: Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this. Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.

As long as it is for the general welfare, the federal government can constitutionally spend money on whatever it wants. This bill merely funds programs. 

The bits that actually did legal heavy lifting were struck down almost 20 years ago - so relax.
 
2013-02-01 04:53:03 PM  

nekom: 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.


But what they don't realize is, oil is a fungible commodity and we don't own the oil companies (they're not nationalized), so we'll pay the same whether that oil comes from North Dakota or Saudi Arabia,

We know we have to get off oil, so why do we need to keep drilling in our back yard? It doesn't gain us anything.
 
2013-02-01 04:53:32 PM  
You do realize that the "Violence Against Women Act" has nothing to do with violence against women.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:01 PM  
In their defense, the name Violence Against Women Act is pretty vague - I mean, is it for violence or against it.
Given some of their backgrounds, I can see where it could cause confusion.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:11 PM  
I love the expansion of protections for homosexuals and wish they hadn't done away with the protections for illegal immigrants.  Yes, these are issues that need special attention above the normal protections afforded by existing laws.  Yes, domestic violence in gay relationships is the same as in any hetero relationships, but there are fewer options for sheltering the victim and prosecuting the abuser.  If gay relationships are not recognized as being official domestic relationships (common law marriage and the like) then the abuse can often not be classified as domestic violence, can not be prosecuted as such, and the victim is not entitled to the same treatments like therapy, housing options, and temporary financial assistance.  There are few enough shelters as it is that allow men and if a gay man is worried about being beaten up by hetero men at the shelter, there are no alternative options because the women aren't going to take him either.

Never mind the sadism behind the mentality with not protecting illegal immigrants.  These people are already worried about getting arrested and separated.  If an abused illegal immigrant even bothers to seek help (which they don't because of the whole arrested and separated thing), shelters literally cannot help them - no money, no food, no counseling - if they cannot prove they are legal.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:20 PM  
Because those old, cranky white. incredibly wealthy and greedy men want to pander to the ignorant hicks that beat their wives.

GOP = Greedy Old Pricks.
 
2013-02-01 04:54:30 PM  

jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.


So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.
 
2013-02-01 04:57:31 PM  
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?


Confirmation bias?

Anyway,

For those who are wanting to read the actual text of the bill, it's here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text You'll have to compare that with the original text.

Criticism of the bill focuses heavily on the fact that it has broad definitions and provides no additional penalties for false accusers (false or unnecessary reports make up nearly 70% of domestic abuse cases). Basically, the bill as it stands is rife with text that can allow vindictive individuals to claim abuse without evidence of abuse and potentially ruin the life of the person they accuse. This is a bad thing, regardless of what side you are on. Is something that makes prosecution of domestic abuse easier worth sending innocent people to prison? SAVE Services, a non-profit abuse awareness group, has a number of reforms they recommend to improve the bill. http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/  . Most of what I see from people defending this bill is "WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AAAAAAAGH!" Which is precisely why it was called the Violence Against Women Act. Because it can be an effective political bludgeon for use against opponents (Republicans). "This law helps abuse victims! There is no way this can have negative consequences! Republicans are douchebags for opposing it!" is probably the most ignorant attitude you could have. We should be building better legislation by checking the laws we have for weaknesses and resolving them. Instead we're trying to pass laws to score points and win the PR battle.

/This logic may be more than Fark can handle.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:14 PM  

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: I never really thought of it this way before, but you can almost consider feminism and men's rights the exact same response but just changing the length of the historical window. One responds to a long state of imbalance and one responds to a very recent trend of change in balance.

Exactly- but that's what I mean about protesting loss of privilege versus actual structural inequality. Men's Rights groups are reacting to what they feel like is an assault on their rights. That's a misconception though.


Yeah, there's some of that for sure. The issue that bugs me though (in general, not talking about VAWA) is that the severity of a crime shouldn't be based on the victim against whom it was committed except in cases like children and the disabled. There's no historical context that lets you reasonably go, "well, your group was able to vote for longer, so we're going to give the person who beat you 5 years instead of 10." There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:34 PM  

nickdaisy: This is not a responsibility of the federal government.


Note there are large differences between arguing that something is outside the power of Congress under the Constitution and that it is not government's responsibility.  Under the tax and spending clause (and the 16th amendment), Congress could levy an income tax specifically to provide every american with an ice cream cone on their birthday.  This would likely pass any constitutional muster.  That is not to say that it is a proper responsibility of government.

In other words, stop conflating constitutional and a good idea.  Many things are great ideas but unconstitutional, just as many things you may thing are terrible idea are 100% constitutional.

/Note: This applies to both political sides.
 
2013-02-01 04:58:42 PM  

nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.


It's not the responsibility of the federal government to protect and aid its citizens?
 
2013-02-01 04:59:09 PM  

nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?


Fair criticism, but since it has been around for a long time and it doesn't look like anyone is going to challenge it "It's unconstitutional!" is kind of a moot point to make.
 
2013-02-01 04:59:25 PM  

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this. Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.

As long as it is for the general welfare, the federal government can constitutionally spend money on whatever it wants. This bill merely funds programs. 

The bits that actually did legal heavy lifting were struck down almost 20 years ago - so relax.


So could then, for example, the federal government spend money on requiring all people to wear socks? Love "Twilight?" Learn to rhumba?

Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!
 
2013-02-01 05:01:34 PM  
I get side tracked so easily. :/
 
2013-02-01 05:02:22 PM  

nickdaisy: So could then, for example, the federal government spend money on requiring all people to wear socks? Love "Twilight?" Learn to rhumba?

Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!


No, but they could offer everyone in america $10 a week to wear socks, or say that they love twilight or learn to rumba.

They shouldn't, but they could. The spending power is pretty vast and it is right there in the constitution.
 
2013-02-01 05:03:12 PM  

ProfessorOhki: There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.


I would agree with you that historical privilege isn't particularly relevant in criminal law most of the time- but not all of the time. Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that hate crimes legislation, for example, was created so that federal authority could be used in areas where local law enforcement chooses not to act based on prejudice. I think the need for that is probably dwindling, but it's certainly not totally gone. Imagine being Mexican and the victim of a crime in Sheriff Joe's district for example.

As far as victim support goes- I think it should be allocated based on need, and as it stands, women are still much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic abuse than men are, and therefore it makes sense to tailor the response to that reality. Should those numbers begin to shift, I think revisiting how aid is allocated would make sense.
 
2013-02-01 05:03:34 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.

There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.

Grow some balls.

Are you all for treating men the same when it comes to say.... life and auto insurance? Maternity leave? Nicer bathrooms? Child support? Divorce?

You do realize rape shield laws work in reverse too, right? That a man who reports a rape will not have his name revealed in the media? That a woman falsely accused of rape would have  the same hassle?

You don't think about it that way though because in this world, rape is much more often committed against women- and often, when it's committed against men, it's by another man. Women rapists DO exist, but not in nearly the same number.

As far as life and auto insurance- I'd be absolutely fine with dropping gender from the actuarial tables, but that would require regulating private business pretty extensively. How do you feel about that?

And as for maternity leave- OF COURSE I support paid paternity leave as well. Most feminists do. Honestly, the way Sweden handles it would be ideal- 16 months paid per couple to be split however they choose.

As far as child support and divorce laws go- I do support gender equality there. But my idea of equality is actual equality, and not "Stupid biatch ruined my life so I should get to ruin hers" which is generally how those conversations devolve on the internet.


FBI definition: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

A woman cannot rape with her sex organ. Therefore your whole "Men get equal protection under the law" thing is basically completely moot. The whole thing needs to be rewritten in gender neutral language and state that "forced sex" is rape.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:06 PM  

nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!


You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:23 PM  

kbotc: "Penetration, no matter how slight


Dammit, there goes my "just the tip" defense.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:23 PM  

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

So no knee-jerk reaction from me.

[dilbert.com image 640x186]


But it works out great at election time when you get to point out your opponent's voting record and that he helped to defeat the "God Bless Our Veterans" act and voted against the "Keep Slavery Illegal" bill.
 
2013-02-01 05:06:59 PM  

sex0r: Wasteful litigation.


He said, before admitting he hadn't read it at all.
 
2013-02-01 05:10:51 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!

You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.


Why do you think he doesn't want the Federal Government to meddle in states abilities to regulate your uterus.

He's just another Republican con who duped his supporters into thinking he's different because he doesn't support tyranny on a Federal level.

He just supports tyranny on a state level, just like any other Republican.
 
2013-02-01 05:16:28 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!

You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.


And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.

Give that authority to the Feds though and what do you get? Well, Roe v Wade for a bit maybe, but what if the court flips-- where ya gonna move to then?

Everyone loves big government when it does when they want-- not so much when it's against 'em
 
2013-02-01 05:18:49 PM  

nickdaisy: Give that authority to the Feds though and what do you get? Well, Roe v Wade for a bit maybe, but what if the court flips-- where ya gonna move to then?


Move to a different country?
 
2013-02-01 05:19:26 PM  

nickdaisy: And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.


That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.
 
2013-02-01 05:20:01 PM  

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.

I would agree with you that historical privilege isn't particularly relevant in criminal law most of the time- but not all of the time. Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that hate crimes legislation, for example, was created so that federal authority could be used in areas where local law enforcement chooses not to act based on prejudice. I think the need for that is probably dwindling, but it's certainly not totally gone. Imagine being Mexican and the victim of a crime in Sheriff Joe's district for example


But the directionality doesn't work. Mexican on Mexican crime wouldn't be a hate crime, correct? That sort of shatters any illusions of it being intended to make sure a victim gets justice in the face of local corruption. Besides, if that was the driving force, they should have gone after Sheriff Joe directly; an awkward workaround like that takes the penalties for his corruption and applies to some perpetrators and victims, all while leaving Sheriff Joe free and with power.

If that really was the intent, I can appreciate the sentiment... but it was still a lousy approach.
 
2013-02-01 05:22:26 PM  
Gosh... I can feel my taxes going down already!

That was what we elected these people for, right?

suckers
 
2013-02-01 05:23:53 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.


It's not just the loudest voices that are the problem. In fact a lot of the quiet voices (in both Men's and Women's advocacy groups) are worse. There really does not appear to be any movement in America resembling a sane and egalitarian voice on gender rights and relations.
 
2013-02-01 05:29:28 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.

It's not the responsibility of the federal government to protect and aid its citizens?


No it's not. It's the responsibility of the federal government to protect liberty by providing a system of civil courts and limited criminal-- you know what?

Screw it. I can't hope to educate you all. We're all doomed.

Doomed I say.

Have fun saluting the all-knowing leader you elect to be Generalissimo in 20 years after you decide our Republic is too quaint.

If he's a "Democrat"(whatever that means) you'll all slap yourselves on the back and say how thrilled you are. Especially if he's a she-- or even better a he/she.

If it's a "Republican" Fox News will scream how we will all be safe now and the country can return to it's conservative roots, as our new king disappears political opponents and mandates regular daily Bible study.

Ron Paul if you're reading this, meet me in Las Vegas this weekend. Pai gow tables at the Mirage. Let's get hammered and just forget about the impending doom.

Don't bring your son. He seems sort of uptight.
 
2013-02-01 05:30:39 PM  

ProfessorOhki: But the directionality doesn't work. Mexican on Mexican crime wouldn't be a hate crime, correct? That sort of shatters any illusions of it being intended to make sure a victim gets justice in the face of local corruption. Besides, if that was the driving force, they should have gone after Sheriff Joe directly; an awkward workaround like that takes the penalties for his corruption and applies to some perpetrators and victims, all while leaving Sheriff Joe free and with power.

If that really was the intent, I can appreciate the sentiment... but it was still a lousy approach.


I just used Sheriff Joe as an example. There are a lot of Sheriff Joes. Not all of them are loud about their biases- sometimes it takes years and years to figure out that local law enforcement is selective in how they go after people.

I could also be totally wrong about this- I have a GED in internet law, so someone who went to a real law school should chime in if I'm in the wrong- but I imagine some of it was to provide a legal argument of intent in cases where it wouldn't have existed otherwise. The Matthew Shepherd case for example- that looks totally senseless and completely out of the blue, until his sexual orientation and the perpetrators' biases were brought in. Establishing the reason someone committed a crime has always been important in criminal cases.

The good news is, racially motivated hate crimes seem to be going down each year, which is promising. Hate crimes based on perceived sexual orientation and religion are holding steady or increasing though.
 
2013-02-01 05:30:39 PM  

Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.


It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.
 
2013-02-01 05:35:56 PM  

Genevieve Marie: 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


1) I find it interesting to note that in the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey that if forced-to-penetrate, AKA forced-envelopment is counted as rape, in the United States, men make up 50% of rape victims in the 12 months prior to the survey. Additionally, 79.2% of all men who reported being "made to penetrate someone else" reported a female perpetrator. Sure doesn't seem like the statistics lean so heavily away from men that we should ignore their needs...
 
2013-02-01 05:36:35 PM  

Jackson Herring: johnny_vegas: both sides of the aisle put at least this much effort to passing a budget.

why, exactly


Selfish...operating on a CR (and the possibility of sequestration) is personally impacting my ability to do my job.
 
2013-02-01 05:37:10 PM  

chapman: Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.

It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.


But that seems to be the argument.

If one state imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us to move to a different state.

If one country imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us that it's totally unfair to expect them to move to a different country.

Either be consistent in that both things are stupid to ask for or be in agreement with both things, because favoring stupid laws on a state level but not on a federal level just shows that you support tyranny as long as its on a state level.
 
2013-02-01 05:37:35 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.

That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.


So you'd prefer that there be ONE national system? So that when George Bush VIII is elected in twenty years and stuffs the court full of righties you can watch as he kicks your choice to the legal curbs? At least fifty different states encourages a diversity of views on these subjects. Also, since you live in an area you will, one would think, fit in that area. That is to say-- it's far more likely that you'll influence and be influenced by a system the smaller it is.

I know I prefer my state that has legalized gambling and no income tax to the anti booze state to the east and tax em all till they choke state to the west (should be easy to figure out where I do my farking)
 
2013-02-01 05:41:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: chapman: Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.

It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.

But that seems to be the argument.

If one state imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us to move to a different state.

If one country imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us that it's totally unfair to expect them to move to a different country.

Either be consistent in that both things are stupid to ask for or be in agreement with both things, because favoring stupid laws on a state level but not on a federal level just shows that you support tyranny as long as its on a state level.


Rubbish. Ron Paul was laughed at in the debates when he (accurately) predicted that the USG would impose capital controls on those wanting to immigrate from the States. He's the only mainstream politician who warns of tyranny at all levels.