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  
•       •       •

10822 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 05:03:34 PM  

Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Real men understand that if people want to be treated equally, stop making special laws that penalize or elevate a class of people.

Not real hard.

People with basic comprehension skills look at the world around them and recognize that inequalities exist, and that addressing them in the legal system is sometimes the best way to bring about equality.

There is no inequality here. Women have all the rights men do, and more. Accuse a dude of rape? No problem, we will hide your identity while plastering his all over the media. His life is ruined even though you lied. Don't like it? Too bad. You are a man, and men must be punished.

Grow some balls.

Are you all for treating men the same when it comes to say.... life and auto insurance? Maternity leave? Nicer bathrooms? Child support? Divorce?

You do realize rape shield laws work in reverse too, right? That a man who reports a rape will not have his name revealed in the media? That a woman falsely accused of rape would have  the same hassle?

You don't think about it that way though because in this world, rape is much more often committed against women- and often, when it's committed against men, it's by another man. Women rapists DO exist, but not in nearly the same number.

As far as life and auto insurance- I'd be absolutely fine with dropping gender from the actuarial tables, but that would require regulating private business pretty extensively. How do you feel about that?

And as for maternity leave- OF COURSE I support paid paternity leave as well. Most feminists do. Honestly, the way Sweden handles it would be ideal- 16 months paid per couple to be split however they choose.

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.


FBI definition: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

A woman cannot rape with her sex organ. Therefore your whole "Men get equal protection under the law" thing is basically completely moot. The whole thing needs to be rewritten in gender neutral language and state that "forced sex" is rape.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:06 PM  

nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!


You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:23 PM  

kbotc: "Penetration, no matter how slight


Dammit, there goes my "just the tip" defense.
 
2013-02-01 05:05:23 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.

So no knee-jerk reaction from me.

[dilbert.com image 640x186]


But it works out great at election time when you get to point out your opponent's voting record and that he helped to defeat the "God Bless Our Veterans" act and voted against the "Keep Slavery Illegal" bill.
 
2013-02-01 05:06:59 PM  

sex0r: Wasteful litigation.


He said, before admitting he hadn't read it at all.
 
2013-02-01 05:10:51 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!

You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.


Why do you think he doesn't want the Federal Government to meddle in states abilities to regulate your uterus.

He's just another Republican con who duped his supporters into thinking he's different because he doesn't support tyranny on a Federal level.

He just supports tyranny on a state level, just like any other Republican.
 
2013-02-01 05:16:28 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: Why then are there all those grants of authority in those first few articles? Why not just say "you can do everything except for the stuff you're not allowed to in the Bill of Rights."?

Ron Paul PLEASE find a machine that makes you young, use it, and run again in 2016!

You do realize that Ron Paul is fairly hostile to some important rights at the state level, right? He may be anti-regulation at the federal level, but boy howdy does he support giving the state the power to regulate my uterus.


And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.

Give that authority to the Feds though and what do you get? Well, Roe v Wade for a bit maybe, but what if the court flips-- where ya gonna move to then?

Everyone loves big government when it does when they want-- not so much when it's against 'em
 
2013-02-01 05:18:49 PM  

nickdaisy: Give that authority to the Feds though and what do you get? Well, Roe v Wade for a bit maybe, but what if the court flips-- where ya gonna move to then?


Move to a different country?
 
2013-02-01 05:19:26 PM  

nickdaisy: And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.


That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.
 
2013-02-01 05:20:01 PM  

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: There are contexts where historical privilege can be relevant, but it's not criminal law and it really shouldn't be victim support either.

I would agree with you that historical privilege isn't particularly relevant in criminal law most of the time- but not all of the time. Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that hate crimes legislation, for example, was created so that federal authority could be used in areas where local law enforcement chooses not to act based on prejudice. I think the need for that is probably dwindling, but it's certainly not totally gone. Imagine being Mexican and the victim of a crime in Sheriff Joe's district for example


But the directionality doesn't work. Mexican on Mexican crime wouldn't be a hate crime, correct? That sort of shatters any illusions of it being intended to make sure a victim gets justice in the face of local corruption. Besides, if that was the driving force, they should have gone after Sheriff Joe directly; an awkward workaround like that takes the penalties for his corruption and applies to some perpetrators and victims, all while leaving Sheriff Joe free and with power.

If that really was the intent, I can appreciate the sentiment... but it was still a lousy approach.
 
2013-02-01 05:22:26 PM  
Gosh... I can feel my taxes going down already!

That was what we elected these people for, right?

suckers
 
2013-02-01 05:23:53 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Skepticism is always fair. The thing is, many (especially the most vocal) feminist communities rely on lots of resentment towards men to stoke anger. Lots of equating loss of... you see where I'm going with this. It's just much more apparent when dealing with a community who's resentment is directed at you. I imagine it's much the same deal though; there's always going to be angry resentful folks and they're always going to be the loudest.


It's not just the loudest voices that are the problem. In fact a lot of the quiet voices (in both Men's and Women's advocacy groups) are worse. There really does not appear to be any movement in America resembling a sane and egalitarian voice on gender rights and relations.
 
2013-02-01 05:29:28 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.

It's not the responsibility of the federal government to protect and aid its citizens?


No it's not. It's the responsibility of the federal government to protect liberty by providing a system of civil courts and limited criminal-- you know what?

Screw it. I can't hope to educate you all. We're all doomed.

Doomed I say.

Have fun saluting the all-knowing leader you elect to be Generalissimo in 20 years after you decide our Republic is too quaint.

If he's a "Democrat"(whatever that means) you'll all slap yourselves on the back and say how thrilled you are. Especially if he's a she-- or even better a he/she.

If it's a "Republican" Fox News will scream how we will all be safe now and the country can return to it's conservative roots, as our new king disappears political opponents and mandates regular daily Bible study.

Ron Paul if you're reading this, meet me in Las Vegas this weekend. Pai gow tables at the Mirage. Let's get hammered and just forget about the impending doom.

Don't bring your son. He seems sort of uptight.
 
2013-02-01 05:30:39 PM  

ProfessorOhki: But the directionality doesn't work. Mexican on Mexican crime wouldn't be a hate crime, correct? That sort of shatters any illusions of it being intended to make sure a victim gets justice in the face of local corruption. Besides, if that was the driving force, they should have gone after Sheriff Joe directly; an awkward workaround like that takes the penalties for his corruption and applies to some perpetrators and victims, all while leaving Sheriff Joe free and with power.

If that really was the intent, I can appreciate the sentiment... but it was still a lousy approach.


I just used Sheriff Joe as an example. There are a lot of Sheriff Joes. Not all of them are loud about their biases- sometimes it takes years and years to figure out that local law enforcement is selective in how they go after people.

I could also be totally wrong about this- I have a GED in internet law, so someone who went to a real law school should chime in if I'm in the wrong- but I imagine some of it was to provide a legal argument of intent in cases where it wouldn't have existed otherwise. The Matthew Shepherd case for example- that looks totally senseless and completely out of the blue, until his sexual orientation and the perpetrators' biases were brought in. Establishing the reason someone committed a crime has always been important in criminal cases.

The good news is, racially motivated hate crimes seem to be going down each year, which is promising. Hate crimes based on perceived sexual orientation and religion are holding steady or increasing though.
 
2013-02-01 05:30:39 PM  

Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.


It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.
 
2013-02-01 05:35:56 PM  

Genevieve Marie: topcon: (Note: I have no idea what is in this bill.)

You're not the only one, there seem to be a lot of people in here railing against this thing who have no background information on it or on what it contains.

The objections in this thread seem to be:
1) This bill is named for women, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? (Granted, the fact that women are statistically much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence always manages to be conveniently ignored)
2) I don't know what's in this bill so it must be bad


1) I find it interesting to note that in the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey that if forced-to-penetrate, AKA forced-envelopment is counted as rape, in the United States, men make up 50% of rape victims in the 12 months prior to the survey. Additionally, 79.2% of all men who reported being "made to penetrate someone else" reported a female perpetrator. Sure doesn't seem like the statistics lean so heavily away from men that we should ignore their needs...
 
2013-02-01 05:36:35 PM  

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

why, exactly


Selfish...operating on a CR (and the possibility of sequestration) is personally impacting my ability to do my job.
 
2013-02-01 05:37:10 PM  

chapman: Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.

It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.


But that seems to be the argument.

If one state imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us to move to a different state.

If one country imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us that it's totally unfair to expect them to move to a different country.

Either be consistent in that both things are stupid to ask for or be in agreement with both things, because favoring stupid laws on a state level but not on a federal level just shows that you support tyranny as long as its on a state level.
 
2013-02-01 05:37:35 PM  

Genevieve Marie: nickdaisy: And the beauty of our federal system is if you don't like your state there are 49 others that treat lotteries, schooling, roads, and uterus regulatin' differently.

That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.


So you'd prefer that there be ONE national system? So that when George Bush VIII is elected in twenty years and stuffs the court full of righties you can watch as he kicks your choice to the legal curbs? At least fifty different states encourages a diversity of views on these subjects. Also, since you live in an area you will, one would think, fit in that area. That is to say-- it's far more likely that you'll influence and be influenced by a system the smaller it is.

I know I prefer my state that has legalized gambling and no income tax to the anti booze state to the east and tax em all till they choke state to the west (should be easy to figure out where I do my farking)
 
2013-02-01 05:41:41 PM  

Mrtraveler01: chapman: Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.

It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.

But that seems to be the argument.

If one state imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us to move to a different state.

If one country imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us that it's totally unfair to expect them to move to a different country.

Either be consistent in that both things are stupid to ask for or be in agreement with both things, because favoring stupid laws on a state level but not on a federal level just shows that you support tyranny as long as its on a state level.


Rubbish. Ron Paul was laughed at in the debates when he (accurately) predicted that the USG would impose capital controls on those wanting to immigrate from the States. He's the only mainstream politician who warns of tyranny at all levels.
 
2013-02-01 05:42:50 PM  

nickdaisy: Mrtraveler01: chapman: Genevieve Marie: That's so disingenuous- the idea that you can just up and leave if you don't like it. It ignores all kinds of factors. Family, job situations, home ownership- just to name a few. The idea that it's fine to give states the right to set their own parameters on civil rights, and people who become marginalized should just leave if they don't care for it- it's a bullshiat perspective that ignores reality quite a bit.

It's even less practical to leave a whole country that has imposed unified standards that suck.

But that seems to be the argument.

If one state imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us to move to a different state.

If one country imposes some stupid law, the Ron Paulites tell us that it's totally unfair to expect them to move to a different country.

Either be consistent in that both things are stupid to ask for or be in agreement with both things, because favoring stupid laws on a state level but not on a federal level just shows that you support tyranny as long as its on a state level.

Rubbish. Ron Paul was laughed at in the debates when he (accurately) predicted that the USG would impose capital controls on those wanting to immigrate from the States. He's the only mainstream politician who warns of tyranny at all levels.


That's why he supports DOMA right?
 
2013-02-01 05:45:01 PM  
snocone:   It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.
I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.
THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.


Liz Micheals, is that you?
 
2013-02-01 05:52:08 PM  

Genevieve Marie: ProfessorOhki: But the directionality doesn't work. Mexican on Mexican crime wouldn't be a hate crime, correct? That sort of shatters any illusions of it being intended to make sure a victim gets justice in the face of local corruption. Besides, if that was the driving force, they should have gone after Sheriff Joe directly; an awkward workaround like that takes the penalties for his corruption and applies to some perpetrators and victims, all while leaving Sheriff Joe free and with power.

If that really was the intent, I can appreciate the sentiment... but it was still a lousy approach.

I just used Sheriff Joe as an example. There are a lot of Sheriff Joes. Not all of them are loud about their biases- sometimes it takes years and years to figure out that local law enforcement is selective in how they go after people.

I could also be totally wrong about this- I have a GED in internet law, so someone who went to a real law school should chime in if I'm in the wrong- but I imagine some of it was to provide a legal argument of intent in cases where it wouldn't have existed otherwise. The Matthew Shepherd case for example- that looks totally senseless and completely out of the blue, until his sexual orientation and the perpetrators' biases were brought in. Establishing the reason someone committed a crime has always been important in criminal cases.

The good news is, racially motivated hate crimes seem to be going down each year, which is promising. Hate crimes based on perceived sexual orientation and religion are holding steady or increasing though.


Knowing why someone was targeted is good for establishing motive and if it was premeditated or not. Matthew Shepherd's case didn't involve any hate crime charges (the legislation expanding the scope came after) and the murders got two consecutive life sentences each. Let's say that if there'd been a hate crime charge involved they'd received 3 life sentences, would justice have been more served? Would the unprovoked beating death of a straight man still have been worth 2? IMHO, there's no distinction between "I murdered them because X" and "I murdered them because Y," just because X is on a list of things our society has an oddly hard time dealing with.
 
2013-02-01 06:04:59 PM  

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: Please enlighten me on the part of the Constitution that grants the Federal government the power in this. Take special note of the 10th Amendment before you say anything.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.

As long as it is for the general welfare, the federal government can constitutionally spend money on whatever it wants. This bill merely funds programs. 

The bits that actually did legal heavy lifting were struck down almost 20 years ago - so relax.


And that interpretation would mean the Federal government has zero limits on power.  If that was the intent, why include the 10th Amendment?
 
2013-02-01 06:06:22 PM  

Teiritzamna: or say that they love twilight


Now you've gone too far.  That kind of talk only helps the terrorists.
 
2013-02-01 06:11:36 PM  
Once again, it will come down to funding. The GOP will say fine, cut some other antiquated social program to pay for. The Democrats will say, no, cut something in that bloated behemoth of a defense program you're so in love with. 

So, it won't pass and Republicans will be pooh-heads.  Or it will pass, be put on the Country's tab, and the Republicans will be pooh-heads who spend too much money, since we all know, thanks to Fark, that all spending originates in the house. 

So, Boehner, cut some Defense spending in a Democratic district and don't be a shiat-head.
 
2013-02-01 06:19:14 PM  

OgreMagi: And that interpretation would mean the Federal government has zero limits on power. If that was the intent, why include the 10th Amendment?


Well no - they can always offer you money.  You as a person can totally say no.  And there are many limits on the compulsory authority of congress.

Put it another way - i am legally able to offer you money to do almost anything.  My ability to force you to do something, on the other hand, is rather tightly constrained.  Its not a perfect analogy but that's close to how the constitution works in this arena.

OgreMagi: Teiritzamna: or say that they love twilight

Now you've gone too far.  That kind of talk only helps the terrorists.


fair enough - withdrawn.
 
2013-02-01 06:23:58 PM  

nickdaisy: Keizer_Ghidorah: nickdaisy: jst3p: nickdaisy: And we have a winner!!! Did anyone else take a civics class that wasn't sponsored by the party of big government (that is to say, the Demopublicans)?

This is not a responsibility of the federal government.

That may be your opinion, but unless your name is preceded by the title "Justice" it is pretty meaningless.

So we shouldn't post our opinions to Fark unless we're one of nine Americans?

Well that will arso least cut down on the annoying pro- and anti- bicycle debating.

It's not the responsibility of the federal government to protect and aid its citizens?

No it's not. It's the responsibility of the federal government to protect liberty by providing a system of civil courts and limited criminal-- you know what?

Screw it. I can't hope to educate you all. We're all doomed.

Doomed I say.

Have fun saluting the all-knowing leader you elect to be Generalissimo in 20 years after you decide our Republic is too quaint.

If he's a "Democrat"(whatever that means) you'll all slap yourselves on the back and say how thrilled you are. Especially if he's a she-- or even better a he/she.

If it's a "Republican" Fox News will scream how we will all be safe now and the country can return to it's conservative roots, as our new king disappears political opponents and mandates regular daily Bible study.

Ron Paul if you're reading this, meet me in Las Vegas this weekend. Pai gow tables at the Mirage. Let's get hammered and just forget about the impending doom.

Don't bring your son. He seems sort of uptight.


Considering you support states being able to discriminate against anyone they choose, criminalize whatever they desire, and anyone who disagrees can fark off on out of there, I'm pretty sure we don't need you "educating" anyone.

Smaller government all around! Except on things I don't like, then put government in women's uteruses, people's bedrooms, and in Christian churches all you want.

We're separate states, but we're still one country.
 
2013-02-01 06:25:07 PM  

Weaver95: the idea that maybe there should be options OTHER than 'death or cake' seems to elude most Republican voters.


Well, duh! There's also the chicken.

Or the vegitarian option, if you're hitler.

/Thank you for flying church of england.
 
2013-02-01 06:26:00 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.


Thank you, I appreciate the response.
 
2013-02-01 06:29:29 PM  

Teiritzamna: OgreMagi: And that interpretation would mean the Federal government has zero limits on power. If that was the intent, why include the 10th Amendment?

Well no - they can always offer you money.  You as a person can totally say no.  And there are many limits on the compulsory authority of congress.

Put it another way - i am legally able to offer you money to do almost anything.  My ability to force you to do something, on the other hand, is rather tightly constrained.  Its not a perfect analogy but that's close to how the constitution works in this arena.

OgreMagi: Teiritzamna: or say that they love twilight

Now you've gone too far.  That kind of talk only helps the terrorists.

fair enough - withdrawn.


My problem with the Feds "legally offering money" is how it's paid for.  I am not given a choice on paying the taxes that they use to pay for stuff they technically don't have the Constitutional authority to do and are using bribery to get around the limitations.  The government is simply using slight of hands to get around the legal limitations.

The Federal government tried this kind of trickery to get around the 4th and 5th amendment.  They would get local police to raid homes and businesses without a warrant until the 14th Amendment put a stop to that.
 
2013-02-01 06:53:17 PM  
i didn't want to comment on this because of the possibility that i would get killed over my opinions, but here we go:

so, vawa undermines basic due process, if you are just now hearing about this wonderfully effective piece of legislation which itself actually increases violence, rape, and incarceration, predominantly for men, while completely ignoring that DV rates are equal initiation for either sex, also between same sex couples, then good for you, you epitomize the kneejerk pointless american who has no idea about the "laws" under which you are governed.

here's some crazy shiat that you can make fun of:  http://www.the-spearhead.com/

come, revel in the glory of a society which makes laws which make some more equal than others.

and make sure to hate on white men! because alienating huge swaths of the populace is a great way to build social cohesion! it's almost like this shiat is done on purpose to deter solidarity and acceptance, but who knows, i'm probably just a crazy fark who doesn't deserve to own weapons or the right to due process and free speech, because why? because fark me obviously.

way to go though for having no idea about a law that has been wreaking havoc over large swaths of the population for nearly two decades! see you in the future guys!
 
2013-02-01 07:00:26 PM  
Wow an inherently discriminatory act. Where's the Violence Against Men Act?

there is already a LOT of protections in place for women yet where's the support for abused men? Oh that's right, men are never abused, it's only the "weaker sex" (but that label is only applied when it benefits them mind you) that needs protecting.

Your gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is abuse. Treat it all equally and lets NOT create special classes of people.


/been abused and went to jail for restraining someone that busted my lip and kicked me in the nuts.
//restrained in self defense
///biased laws are biased
 
2013-02-01 07:06:26 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Wow an inherently discriminatory act. Where's the Violence Against Men Act?

there is already a LOT of protections in place for women yet where's the support for abused men? Oh that's right, men are never abused, it's only the "weaker sex" (but that label is only applied when it benefits them mind you) that needs protecting.

Your gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is abuse. Treat it all equally and lets NOT create special classes of people.


/been abused and went to jail for restraining someone that busted my lip and kicked me in the nuts.
//restrained in self defense
///biased laws are biased


You haven't read any of this thread, have you?  Men ARE covered by this legislation.  All men.
 
2013-02-01 07:09:20 PM  

gadian: ReverendJynxed: Wow an inherently discriminatory act. Where's the Violence Against Men Act?

there is already a LOT of protections in place for women yet where's the support for abused men? Oh that's right, men are never abused, it's only the "weaker sex" (but that label is only applied when it benefits them mind you) that needs protecting.

Your gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is abuse. Treat it all equally and lets NOT create special classes of people.


/been abused and went to jail for restraining someone that busted my lip and kicked me in the nuts.
//restrained in self defense
///biased laws are biased

You haven't read any of this thread, have you?  Men ARE covered by this legislation.  All men.


Apparently I haven't realized until now how hard white men like me have had it in this country.
 
2013-02-01 07:10:11 PM  
Hell, I'm I'm conservative and I'm all for the violence against women bill. biatch needs some violence every once in a while. Keep her mind where it needs to be.

/like guessing if I tomatoes on my sammich today or not.
//better get it right.
 
2013-02-01 07:16:33 PM  

ReverendJynxed: Wow an inherently discriminatory act. Where's the Violence Against Men Act?

there is already a LOT of protections in place for women yet where's the support for abused men? Oh that's right, men are never abused, it's only the "weaker sex" (but that label is only applied when it benefits them mind you) that needs protecting.

Your gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is abuse. Treat it all equally and lets NOT create special classes of people.


/been abused and went to jail for restraining someone that busted my lip and kicked me in the nuts.
//restrained in self defense
///biased laws are biased


It wouldn't be a bad thing to include men or have another bill for that, but it doesn't make it a bad bill.
 
2013-02-01 07:17:12 PM  

gadian: ReverendJynxed: Wow an inherently discriminatory act. Where's the Violence Against Men Act?

there is already a LOT of protections in place for women yet where's the support for abused men? Oh that's right, men are never abused, it's only the "weaker sex" (but that label is only applied when it benefits them mind you) that needs protecting.

Your gender shouldn't matter. Abuse is abuse. Treat it all equally and lets NOT create special classes of people.


/been abused and went to jail for restraining someone that busted my lip and kicked me in the nuts.
//restrained in self defense
///biased laws are biased

You haven't read any of this thread, have you?  Men ARE covered by this legislation.  All men.


And there you go
 
2013-02-01 07:32:55 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
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?


Liberals believe all guns should be banned because if they had access to them they would rampage. Listen to how they talk about how easy it is to kill with a gun. Farking evil psychos.
Liberals have said to my face that that we deserved 9/11 while condemning our actions to defend ourselves.
Liberals don't think mexicans could possibly fix their own country, be expected to obey immigration laws or otherwise function within the law, so they make special exceptions.
Liberals raise taxes on income, practically jerk off to the idea of income tax, oblvious and stupid about how the real power elite make and protect their money.

Libs are hypocritical lying deceptive dirtbags who will shout insults (like I am doing) and act all offended that someone DARES to respond in kind.

fark libs
 
2013-02-01 07:34:22 PM  

Treygreen13: Most of the stuff I read shows opposition to some key language in the bill


so rather than amend the bill, they jsut work to prevent it from ever getting a vote
I guess that makes sense.
 
2013-02-01 07:37:18 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: OK, Corky, have a great day!


A lib shows their stripes. Person with Down Syndrome has success but, being a lib, you show what you really think of someone who is disadvantaged who then becomes successful.

farking libs
 
2013-02-01 07:39:01 PM  

namatad: Treygreen13: Most of the stuff I read shows opposition to some key language in the bill

so rather than amend the bill, they jsut work to prevent it from ever getting a vote
I guess that makes sense.


I believe the House has, just as you suggested, already passed an amended version of the bill.
 
2013-02-01 07:40:59 PM  

jst3p: OgreMagi: jst3p: 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.

The studies show that my first statement is true.

Show me one credible study that shows that men are victims "just as often".


Still waiting for that study....


/I am not really waiting because we both know it doesn't exist
 
2013-02-01 07:43:33 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Apparently I haven't realized until now how hard white men like me have had it in this country.


You have no idea! I have don't how I make it through every day with the deck so stacked against me.
 
2013-02-01 07:50:24 PM  
THE PERFECT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL TICKET!!!

EBENEZER SCROOGE

for PRESIDENT

AYN RAND
for VICE PRESIDENT

FOR AN AMERICA WHERE COMPASSION, JUSTICE, AND GENEROSITY
BECOME THE OBSCENE WORDS THEY SHOULD BE!
 
2013-02-01 07:52:08 PM  
Aeon Rising:

Conservatives believe that all abortions should be banned because as it stands now, apparently every woman is lining up to have sex hoping to get pregnant so they can get rid of that fetus.
Conservatives have openly stated that we deserved 9/11, and a host of other calamities and natural disasters, because their idea of God hates us for having things like gays and liberal women and the free choice to not believe in their God.
Conservatives think that being born in this country, and raised in this country, attending our public schools and absorbing our culture doesn't count as being a citizen if your parents happened to be immigrants. How soon til being a citizen doesn't count unless you're a conservative?...
Conservatives hate the idea of taxes, any taxes, unless those taxes go toward funding our bloated war-machine. And when taxes are cut across the board, federal and state-wise, and spending therefore is cut and austerity is implemented and services therefore degrade or disappear...voila! Evidence of how the government system sucks! And if the government has to outsource their services to private companies at higher costs with worse output then that right there is the glorious free-market in action and if you question it then you're a god damn hippie socialist commie.

Haha just kidding, I know that not all conservatives believe those things, that political identity is quite complex and people can label themselves with one thing while believing a whole host of ideas. Conservatives, you're alright by me even though we disagree on certain points.
 
2013-02-01 07:52:40 PM  
This is the same party that had 30 people vote to support rape.
 
2013-02-01 07:53:47 PM  
Here's a Conservative's wet dream:   http://youtu.be/FJJtH_5vcmM?t=44s
 
2013-02-01 07:54:19 PM  

jst3p: jst3p: OgreMagi: jst3p: 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.

The studies show that my first statement is true.

Show me one credible study that shows that men are victims "just as often".

Still waiting for that study....


/I am not really waiting because we both know it doesn't exist


That information has been posted already.  You choose to ignore or dismiss it.

286 peer reviewed studies back the claim.  But I guess experts in their field must bow to your infinite wisdom that says it doesn't happen.
 
2013-02-01 07:57:10 PM  

OgreMagi: jst3p: jst3p: OgreMagi: jst3p: 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.

The studies show that my first statement is true.

Show me one credible study that shows that men are victims "just as often".

Still waiting for that study....


/I am not really waiting because we both know it doesn't exist

That information has been posted already.  You choose to ignore or dismiss it.

286 peer reviewed studies back the claim.  But I guess experts in their field must bow to your infinite wisdom that says it doesn't happen.


I don't see anywhere that 50% of victims of domestic violence are men. You are full of shiat, as usual.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report