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  
•       •       •

10817 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 02:31:08 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.
 
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