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 03:19:23 PM

serial_crusher: Genevieve Marie: [snip a bunch of reasonable stuff]

Yeah, good point.  Call it "Additional Support for Dependent Victims Act" or something equally gender neutral and make the Native-American-Specific stuff more generic, and I'll support it.


So you're willing to judge a book by its cover.

/Dumb shiat.
 
2013-02-01 03:19:36 PM

Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.


You should repost this as much as you want because it's basically the most reasonable thing in here
 
2013-02-01 03:20:27 PM

Mrtraveler01: HellRaisingHoosier: CapeFearCadaver:

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


That still doesn't explain what it DOES ....
How does it improve criminal justice and community-based responses? How did it "change the landscape" for people who suffered in silence?

From what I gathered, it provides funding to organizations and services tailored to victims of domestic abuse.

Why people could possibly be against that, I have no farking clue.


Because the Federal government has no legal authority.  Just because something is a good thing does not mean the Feds should get involved.  Our Constitution is about as farking clear about this as you can get.

Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them.  Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.
 
2013-02-01 03:20:27 PM

djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.


Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?
 
2013-02-01 03:21:33 PM

SilentStrider: Not unexpected with a bunch of misogynists involved.


I always laugh whenever I see the M word used on the bastion of boobies and sharp knees that is Fark.
 
2013-02-01 03:22:08 PM

serial_crusher: make the Native-American-Specific stuff more generic, and I'll support it.


The Native American provisions in the bill are designed to specifically deal with gaps in domestic violence responses experienced by Native American women living on the reservations- it's not something that applies to the general public.

I believe one of the provisions is to allow tribal jurisdiction over non-Natives who commit crimes on Native lands. Lots of Native women get raped or assaulted on reservations by non-Native men, and the crime is hard to prosecute because of jurisdiction issues. This was meant to close that loop.

The other provision in it was simply to make sure that domestic violence services are available to women on reservations- right now, a lot of the time, programs are too far away for those women to make use of them.
 
2013-02-01 03:22:27 PM
I remember when Pres. Bush tried to pass the "Clean Air Act", and yet people argued against it.
Hmmm, go figure.
I guess some people don't like clean air.
 
2013-02-01 03:23:12 PM

Giltric: mandatory AIDS tests for males that are accused of a crime and that a conviction is not even needed


1) Does it say who pays for the test (yes, I am that lazy)?  Would be fair to have government foot the bill until after trial, then charge attacker if found guilty, accuser if found innocent, taxpayers if they never catch the guy.
2) Is rape-AIDS that frequent of a problem that they need to automatically test for it and not other STDs?  (insert Todd Akin parody about the body having a natural AIDS defense during legitimate rape)
 
2013-02-01 03:23:16 PM

OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.


Zero support? You sure?
 
2013-02-01 03:23:58 PM
A law that basically targets men, gives women the power to sue even if the man did not commit a crime?

Just a man hating law, nothing more. If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

Christ. Violence is violence. Same rules for men, and women. Get over it.
 
2013-02-01 03:24:27 PM

mahuika: Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.

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


I may repost it over and over too.
 
2013-02-01 03:24:52 PM

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.

Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?


Sure, is last week recent enough?  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-g u n-use-of-the-day-black-rifle-edition/
 
2013-02-01 03:25:05 PM

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

Zero support? You sure?


Those are generic shelters.  Not shelters for victims of abuse.  There are also similiar shelters for women.  So by your argument, why don't we just eliminate the women's abuse victim shelters entirely?
 
2013-02-01 03:25:06 PM
Is there a futile tag for any piece of legislation that doesn't involve tax cuts or more defense spending, and isn't Teabagger-approved? All sorts of things pass the Senate, for all the good it does.
 
2013-02-01 03:25:15 PM

CapeFearCadaver: /woman


That's exactly the kind of thing this bill would prevent!
 
2013-02-01 03:25:41 PM
Look I haven't been following this story which has been in the news for the last six months, but I SURE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT HOW BAD BOTH SIDES ARE
 
2013-02-01 03:25:44 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Wait, so it's still legal to beat the crap out of men?


Just white men not older than 20 years from you.
 
2013-02-01 03:26:31 PM

Genevieve Marie: Genevieve Marie: There seems to be a lot of confusion about what the Violence Against Women Act does here- the primary purpose of the law is to provide federal funding for domestic violence shelters and for coordinated community efforts to protect victims- including counseling programs, legal resources, and housing assistance. When this legislation was originally passed 25 years ago, it was groundbreaking- it drastically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence.

Letting it expire means that a lot of really vital programs will go unfunded.

From what I understand, Republican opposition centered on three things: 1) Allowing LGBT couples in abusive relationships to access VAWA funded programs 2) Providing specific funding to open shelters near reservations- the rape statistics for Native women are staggering, and this was an opportunity to try and address that 3) The original bill that they wouldn't pass last session included some temporary amnesty provisions for illegal immigrant women who are being abused and seek help escaping their abuser. That part, as common sense as it is, has been dropped from this version of the bill.

Yes, I am reposting my own comment, because there are still so many people posting that don't seem to have any clue what this legislation actually does.


If they didn't bother to read it the first time (or one of CapeFearCadaver's explanations) what makes you think they're going to bother now?  Some people just prefer to remain ignorant...
 
2013-02-01 03:27:04 PM

OgreMagi: Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

Zero support? You sure?

Those are generic shelters.  Not shelters for victims of abuse.  There are also similiar shelters for women.  So by your argument, why don't we just eliminate the women's abuse victim shelters entirely?


So there isn't "zero" support, there's zero of the kind of support you want there to be. So now, cite for me sections of VAWA that prohibit funding being used for mens' domestic violence shelters.
 
2013-02-01 03:27:10 PM

Thunderpipes: Just a man hating law, nothing more. If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.


Did you read that in Honcho?
 
2013-02-01 03:27:40 PM

djh0101010: Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: Can you explain why males using an AR-15 for self-defense don't apply to your question? Also, can you explain how you think self-defense is the only legitimate reason for not infringing this right? If you can answer those, maybe it's worth my several minutes googling what apparently you refuse to.

Because someone tried to testify to congress that a woman needed an AR15 for self-defense but couldn't provide an example.

I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?

Sure, is last week recent enough?  http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/daniel-zimmerman/defensive-g u n-use-of-the-day-black-rifle-edition/


Well I'll be.

It's a shame they didn't use that example in Congress this past week huh?

(Note: I'm not in favor of any bans since they are a waste of time, it's more effective to target the screening process and beef up background checks)
 
2013-02-01 03:28:00 PM
Genevieve Marie, you are a cool broad.
Thanks for the info.

/much respect.
 
2013-02-01 03:29:01 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: adding every politically-correct protected group


actually they expanded the bill to include every group AT RISK FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
 
2013-02-01 03:29:03 PM

elgrancerdo: Genevieve Marie, you are a cool broad.
Thanks for the info.

/much respect.


Aw, thanks.

Anytime.
 
2013-02-01 03:29:21 PM
Okay, I realized I'm endangering both my liberal card and my woman card, but the question I've heard raised by Republicans is "violence is already against the law, why do we need another law that does the same thing?" and I wonder what the new law does that the existing one doesn't.

/please be gentle
 
2013-02-01 03:29:43 PM
Is this the thread where morons pretend the bill didnt have a plethora of risers unrelated to women or violence?
 
2013-02-01 03:29:44 PM

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

"drill, baby, drill?"


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

KJUW89: Okay, I realized I'm endangering both my liberal card and my woman card, but the question I've heard raised by Republicans is "violence is already against the law, why do we need another law that does the same thing?" and I wonder what the new law does that the existing one doesn't.

/please be gentle


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

Total.  Dick.

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

Mrtraveler01: I was wondering if you could, I'll make it even easier, it can be either be a man or a woman.

Think you can provide me with that example?


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 
2013-02-01 03:34:53 PM

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.


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

Thunderpipes: A law that basically targets men, gives women the power to sue even if the man did not commit a crime?

Just a man hating law, nothing more. If there were any real men here, you would see it. But you are girly men.

Christ. Violence is violence. Same rules for men, and women. Get over it.


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

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

FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: FirstNationalBastard: I alone am best: Mrtraveler01: I alone am best: They should have called it The violence against women, same sex partners and getting a free visa if your an illegal immigrant and your partner beats you act.

They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.

Try again.

The republicans also passed a version of this bill 2012 in the house. Claiming that "DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ" is just dishonest.

As long as a woman doesn't choose to abort a fetus, that is. Then, Doctors get to lovingly rape them with plastic wands, because Jesus.

/not violently.

So that was in the house bill?

Oh, so you only want to discuss the House bill and the House bill only, not the Rapepublicans wide stance on Woman?

Well, I guess that's one way to make sure your statement is technically correct.

We were discussing the bill that happens to be the subject of this thread.

Ah, but you brought up "Claiming that 'DERP THEY R OUT TO GIT WOMENZ'" is just dishonest.", and I pointed out that Republicans are, indeed, generally out to get womenz. And you suddenly only wanted to discuss one specific bill.


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


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

Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Dr Dreidel: OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them. Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.

Zero support? You sure?

Those are generic shelters.  Not shelters for victims of abuse.  There are also similiar shelters for women.  So by your argument, why don't we just eliminate the women's abuse victim shelters entirely?

So there isn't "zero" support, there's zero of the kind of support you want there to be. So now, cite for me sections of VAWA that prohibit funding being used for mens' domestic violence shelters.



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

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

Mrtraveler01: djh0101010: So, you're saying only shotgun-owning women are allowed to defend themselves, but women who own AR-15s deserve whatever fate the criminals want for them? Seriously?

If you can provide me with an example of a woman who used an AR15 for self-defense. Then I will retract my previous statement.


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

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

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

You know why I would have vetoed this shiat? Because I would demand that the laws apply to all citizens equally, women, black, gay, strait, child or adult.
 
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