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 02:55:42 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.
 
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