If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

10818 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-01 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.


0/10 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."
 
Displayed 50 of 571 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report