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  
•       •       •

10820 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 02:42:27 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.
 
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