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 03:57:38 PM
I hope subby get's tossed out of his house and separated from his kids over a false DV accusation made by a vindictive spouse.  You won't think it's so spiffy then.

VAWA is a bad bill which ignores all the facts about domestic violence.
 
2013-02-01 03:58:18 PM
In other news, Fark researchers discover that the user base is so vapid and emotionally reactive that they will vilify folks for voting against the 'Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013' 

The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:07 PM

Genevieve Marie: As far as child support and divorce laws go- I do support gender equality there. But my idea of equality is actual equality, and not "Stupid biatch ruined my life so I should get to ruin hers" which is generally how those conversations devolve on the internet


As an aside, in today's day and age, an estimated 50 percent of fathers who seek primary custody in a disputed divorce are granted it.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:13 PM

OgreMagi: Are you suggesting a man should abandon his children to a violent crazy woman?


I am suggesting, as I did in my OP, that there is more than "zero" support for male victims of abuse.
 
2013-02-01 03:59:22 PM

dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.


Got a citation for us?
 
2013-02-01 03:59:41 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.


The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib
 
2013-02-01 04:00:08 PM
Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.
 
2013-02-01 04:00:18 PM

doubled99: Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long


"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies.
 
2013-02-01 04:00:27 PM
Holy crap did this thread enter derpland fast. I made it 1/3rd through it before I had to stop.

"But violence against women is already illegal!"
"I don't know what's in this thing, but... DEMOCRAPS! I'm against it!"
"Oh, so Republicans are the only bad guys now? Both sides are bad!"


Jesus Christ, how do you guys manage to operate a computer or phone?
 
2013-02-01 04:00:44 PM

johnny_vegas: both sides of the aisle put at least this much effort to passing a budget.


why, exactly
 
2013-02-01 04:00:58 PM

Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib


OK, Corky, have a great day!
 
2013-02-01 04:01:34 PM

Treygreen13: At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws


You should do some research on Christina Villegas and the "Independent Woman's Forum". It's a conservative think tank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she might not have a good point- I don't have time right now to follow through all of her citations and see how good they are- but it does mean that I'd approach what she says with caution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Women%27s_Forum
 
2013-02-01 04:01:43 PM

Jackson Herring: nickdaisy: Ron Paul, we need you more than ever.

ooooh my god the main page is adorable


I believe the term is 'youtubesque'.
 
2013-02-01 04:01:48 PM

masintenn: I hope subby get's tossed out of his house and separated from his kids over a false DV accusation made by a vindictive spouse.  You won't think it's so spiffy then.

VAWA is a bad bill which ignores all the facts about domestic violence.


You studied it out.
 
2013-02-01 04:02:16 PM

OgreMagi: Here's a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

You can easily google the subject and see for yourself that what I stated is true. I doubt you will bother since your mind is made up. Here's a snippet in the futile hope that you will educate yourself.


This has got to be some kind of satire. You're making fun of people who post absurd things like "the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women", by subtly linking to something that thoroughly dismisses that claim, right?
 
2013-02-01 04:02:37 PM
so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?
 
2013-02-01 04:03:26 PM

Aeon Rising: The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47.


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to


No they don't.

Aeon Rising: - Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME


 No they don't.

Any more shiatty strawmen you'd like to build for us? It's easy to be against something you can imagine in your head.
 
2013-02-01 04:03:40 PM

CapeFearCadaver: /woman


Man.
/Victim of domestic violence,
//no shelters for us.
///but keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-02-01 04:03:59 PM
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies


...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.
 
2013-02-01 04:04:09 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib

OK, Corky, have a great day!


Hmm, it's not nice to insult someone by comparing them to someone with Down's Syndrome. That's pretty shiatty, actually. I take it you've never actually KNOWN anyone with Down's, or you wouldn't be so flip about it. The guy who played Corky is probably 50x smarter than you are, jackhole.
 
2013-02-01 04:05:00 PM

USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?


So if a white male like me is a victim of domestic violence, I won't be protected by this law?

Well that sounds awful.
 
2013-02-01 04:06:08 PM

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: At the risk of inviting further derp into the thread, I'd like to offer another opinion about the VAWA, from Christina Villegas of Huffington Post.
Congress Must Address Flaws

You should do some research on Christina Villegas and the "Independent Woman's Forum". It's a conservative think tank. That doesn't necessarily mean that she might not have a good point- I don't have time right now to follow through all of her citations and see how good they are- but it does mean that I'd approach what she says with caution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Women%27s_Forum


Interesting link. I have reservations about some of the things they do, but some of it seems acceptable. Hard to say definitively whether or not they're allowed to have an opinion on the issue without some more in-depth research on them.
 
2013-02-01 04:06:15 PM
Seriously, when are white christian males going to get THEIR day in the sun?
 
2013-02-01 04:06:30 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Not familiar with the bill.  But I am familiar with the practice (engaged in by both parties) of naming a bill something that sounds absolutely impossible to oppose, but that when someone bothers to read the bill (crazy, I know) it includes lots of either stuff that doesn't forward the goal the title implies or stuff that actually is in conflict with the title.


VAWA expired a while ago.  It didn't need to be replaced because new laws have been enacted which basically provide the same or better protections.  It's not as if this is a purely federal issue, the states to a pretty good job of having laws regarding violence against women, and they don't run afoul of commerce clause concerns.
 
2013-02-01 04:07:00 PM

vudukungfu: Man.
/Victim of domestic violence,
//no shelters for us.


Maybe this bill can help us out huh?

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/crosby/16344481-418/male-stabbin g- victim-finds-shelter-finally.html
 
2013-02-01 04:07:41 PM

Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?


I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.
 
2013-02-01 04:08:34 PM

gameshowhost: Biological Ali: 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.

He's defining domestic violence against males to include "not having been brought a sandwich within 3 minutes of walking in the door".


Exactly where is the shelter for male victims of domestic violence near you? They certainly don't stay at the WOMEN'S shelter. At best they may find space at the Salvation Army if the weather is not too bad.
 
2013-02-01 04:08:37 PM

Treygreen13: Interesting link. I have reservations about some of the things they do, but some of it seems acceptable. Hard to say definitively whether or not they're allowed to have an opinion on the issue without some more in-depth research on them.


They're certainly allowed their opinion, I just would probably scrutinize it pretty carefully. One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

Basically, her article may have some fair points to it and I'll probably put in some time later and follow through some of it to see, but it was most certainly put forward by a group that has a very definite agenda.
 
2013-02-01 04:09:04 PM

someonelse: nickdaisy: Secondly, there seems to be a belief here that the federal government funding something means it comes free.

No. There isn't. But you can argue against a position that doesn't exist if you want.


Then how about the simple fact that an unconstitutional exercise of authority by a central government is troublesome?

When you vest complete power in one entity you risk that power being abused. We allowed the Feds to create a retirement system without a constitutional grant of authority and (allegedly) this created a beneficial Social Security system. We allowed them to tell private business owners who they could and couldn't serve food to and it hastened a decline in racism. Those successes are laudable.

But recently the Feds have also decided they have the authority to detain and even execute citizens without due process-- can you see why this might be super slippery, terrifying slope?

If people really wanted a Social Security system, or the Civil Rights Act, or this silly law, then pass an amendment and grant that authority to the USG. Otherwise you're just saying "we trust you-- no need to base your exercise of power in the constitution-- keep us safe oh wise ones!"

All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.

Is that your idea of a free society?

Does anyone know where I can get one of Ron Paul's toenails so we can commence the cloning process and save this great Republic?
 
2013-02-01 04:09:10 PM

Aeon Rising: Lionel Mandrake: Aeon Rising: StrikitRich: Why do we need a law against violence specifically for women?  Don't we need to enforce laws against violence for everyone we already have first?

Ok, I was just kidding with that last post. The women in my life have access to guns and training in their use. For some reason I have a problem with those weapons being taken away and them being told that instead they should submit to the beating and then sue for compensation later.

Seriously, I HATE dems and libs. why cant they just go away forever?

We hate you, too, honey.

The most baffling part is how you also hate yourselves and are so insanely racist. Deny it all you want but you
- Believe only thing stopping you from going on a rampage is access to a high capacity assault magazine glock ak47. Conservative gun types actually trust their neighbors.
- Think that brown people are helpless and need special help that 'normal' people don't
- Excuse deplorable behavior of terrorists because they just can't be expected to live up to the standards you hold America to
- Work to create a permanent lower class by taxing income while the wealthy are not affected by that because.... THEY DON'T RELY ON INCOME

I would never be your 'honey', I could never respect a lib


- So liberals believe that all guns should be banned AND that the only thing stopping rampages is guns?
- Killing terrorists and helping countries throw off dictators = "thinking 'brown' people are helpless"?
- On the one hand liberals killed Osama bin Laden and every one of his second-in-commands each time they pop up, and on the other hand they don't feel that Islam should be reacted to with the burning white-hot hatred and rage conservatives do.
- I thought it was conservatives who wanted to raise taxes on the middle- and lower-class while abolishing taxes for the rich?
 
2013-02-01 04:09:44 PM

Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.


Oh, I thought he was talking about the VAWA. But I should've known he was just wasting bandwidth.
 
2013-02-01 04:11:49 PM

GoldSpider: Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.


And if it does, I hope my senators voted against it.  I like women, and any bill supporting violence against them is definitely not ok!
 
2013-02-01 04:11:49 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.


Because false premises are self evident. I can just as easily question why the dems have been so callous and hateful by not being as inclusive up to this altered bill.
 
2013-02-01 04:12:38 PM

doubled99: Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies

...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.


Oh, I'm so sorry, did pointing out the people who are screaming "THIS BILL MEANS IT'S OKAY TO BE VIOLENT TOWARDS MEN! SPECIAL RIGHTS! EQUALITY IS INEQUALITY! LIBS LIBS LIBS LIBS!" as obvious trolls, shills, and retards strike a nerve? Should I be more gentle next time?
 
2013-02-01 04:12:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: Skyrmion: Mrtraveler01: dfenstrate: The text of the bill hands $400 billion a year over to corporations owned by Democrat Party donors, without those corporations being required to yield any services to the American people.

Got a citation for us?

I hate to break this to you, but I suspect the, "Voting Against this Bill Means you Rape Golden Retriever Puppies Act of 2013" was just a hypothetical example he made up and was not an actual bill with text.

Oh, I thought he was talking about the VAWA. But I should've known he was just wasting bandwidth.


Actually, now that I look at again, I can't tell for sure either. The post wasn't written very clearly.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:42 PM

Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.


I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:50 PM

nickdaisy: All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.


Especially since state government is free of bureaucracy and abuse of power.
 
2013-02-01 04:13:55 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Frank N Stein: What  exactly does this law do? I don't feel like looking it up

It's a set aside of a couple of billion dollars a year for the special investigation and prosecution of anyone who commits violence against women.  It is feel-good pork legislation for things that are already illegal and already prosecuted.  Most importantly, I don't understand why the entire thing isn't unconstitutional under the equal protection clause.


FTFY.
 
2013-02-01 04:14:24 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Because false premises are self evident.


What's the real premise?
 
2013-02-01 04:14:51 PM

untaken_name: Hmm, it's not nice to insult someone by comparing them to someone with Down's Syndrome. That's pretty shiatty, actually. I take it you've never actually KNOWN anyone with Down's, or you wouldn't be so flip about it.


Boy, you know all about me, don't you?
 
2013-02-01 04:15:44 PM

OgreMagi: Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic


OgreMagi: Because the Federal government has no legal authority.


These are two of the dumbest things you have ever typed here, and that is impressive because you say some really stupid shiat on a regular basis.
 
2013-02-01 04:16:04 PM

someonelse: USP .45: so is this just more "everyone has more rights than white males" legislation?

"The Leahy-Crapo VAWA bill seeks to protect all victims of domestic and sexual violence, including tribal women, college students, and members of the LGBT community,"

Implying they aren't already protected?

No. But go ahead and pretend that your toddler-level understanding of the issue is correct. It's easier that way.


And Republicans oppose it just because they're Republicans, that isn't toddler level? The article offers nothing.
 
2013-02-01 04:16:36 PM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Lionel Mandrake: Well, it looks like no "conservative" is going to explain to me why this old program is suddenly so horrible.

Good luck to all you poor, oppressed men.

Because false premises are self evident. I can just as easily question why the dems have been so callous and hateful by not being as inclusive up to this altered bill.


wat

I asked why, after 20 years, it is now suddenly a horrible thing.

Try to answer the question asked, not the question you wish you'd been asked.
 
2013-02-01 04:18:13 PM

Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.


I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.
 
2013-02-01 04:19:38 PM

Genevieve Marie: I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of resentment towards women


To be fair, that's generally true of any group of men.
 
2013-02-01 04:19:45 PM

Genevieve Marie: Treygreen13: Genevieve Marie: One of the links in that piece goes to a Men's Rights site for example.

I don't necessarily think that linking to a Men's Rights site is a bad thing.
I know you probably agree with that. At least I hope you do.

I've probably had a different experience than you with the Men's Rights community? I've yet to see a Men's Rights community that doesn't rely on a lot of  resentment towards women and towards feminists to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of privilege with inequality.

I don't know enough about that particular community to know if it's one of those, but I typically go into those sites skeptical.


Another men rights group:

www.bundyology.com
 
2013-02-01 04:19:53 PM
Comic Kathleen Madigan had a bit about how, if she were a politician, she'd name her bills something like 'The be nice to retarded people bill' so that her opponents wouldn't dare vote against it.
Wonder of the person who named this bill saw that set?
 
2013-02-01 04:20:20 PM

someonelse: nickdaisy: All of this could have been accomplished at the state level. It's amusing to see proclaimed liberals celebrating control of their lives from a mother ship full of bureaucrats.

Especially since state government is free of bureaucracy and abuse of power.


So you'd prefer to allow a supreme authority to rule on the issue? Doesn't the idea of a monopoly of power frighten you? Wouldn't it make sense to vest the federal government only with a few, specific, absolutely necessary national authorities, knowing that over time all three branches would inevitably seek to consolidate power?

Perhaps you'd prefer we make things really efficient and just get rid of all the clutter of the courts and the legislature. We could just have one wise, capable leader guide the way. He could even pick his own successor. Would that be progressive enough for you?

We need you Ron Paul-- save us before we all turn into king worshipping zombies.
 
2013-02-01 04:20:30 PM
Keizer Ghidorah
Nothing brings out the trolls, shills, and retards like a thread about violence towards women.

What took you so long

"It takes one to know one" is the last resort of schoolyard sissies

...says the guy who's response is to call people names.
You're out of your depth here. Plus, you're really boring. just go away.


Oh, I'm so sorry, did pointing out the people who are screaming "THIS BILL MEANS IT'S OKAY TO BE VIOLENT TOWARDS MEN! SPECIAL RIGHTS! EQUALITY IS INEQUALITY! LIBS LIBS LIBS LIBS!" as obvious trolls, shills, and retards strike a nerve? Should I be more gentle next time?

Thank god you're here to point out the faults of others' posts. It's a real breath of fresh air.
 
2013-02-01 04:21:24 PM
Ignoring every blithering moron who said anything like "I thought violence was already illegal" or "What about violence against men?" makes this thread a lot more readable. Of course it also cuts the length nearly in half.
 
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