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 121
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10818 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-01 02:13:49 PM
12 votes:
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
2013-02-01 02:25:05 PM
11 votes:
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.
2013-02-01 02:21:43 PM
9 votes:
While I may not agree with the Republican party, they aren't demons out to get you.

Sometimes Fark gets uncomfortably close to groupthink.
2013-02-01 02:10:24 PM
6 votes:

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.


I don't have a problem with it. Although, in the sake of fairness, I believe that they shouldn't exclude half of the population in the legislation name. Men have and do suffer from domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. But the law itself seems pretty good.
2013-02-01 12:24:10 PM
6 votes:

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


No.
2013-02-01 11:44:32 AM
6 votes:
farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?
2013-02-01 02:15:42 PM
5 votes:
ITT - people who have not read the bill and don't realize that it covers everyone, including straight white men
2013-02-01 02:14:10 PM
5 votes:
Just wait until we find out what else is in this bill that has nothing to do with violence against women.
2013-02-01 02:37:31 PM
4 votes:

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.
2013-02-01 02:22:00 PM
4 votes:
FARK the FARK out of both sides on this one.
How about a violence against PEOPLE act?
MORANS.
Sexist assholes.
2013-02-01 02:21:46 PM
4 votes:
I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.
2013-02-01 02:15:14 PM
4 votes:
Why not have a violence against people act?

Unless the people who wrote the VAWA have such a low opinion of women that they think they can't take care of themselves, and need special treatment.
2013-02-01 12:27:12 PM
4 votes:
Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.
2013-02-01 02:51:29 PM
3 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: sex0r: DeathCipris: So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.

Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


Actually hate crime legislation is more of a backstop so the Feds can come in when an assult will not be prosecuted by racist locals. It is also ment as a derrernt for premeditated attacks based on race.
2013-02-01 02:39:25 PM
3 votes:

namatad: Treygreen13: I see nobody bothered to read why Republicans didn't want to vote for it this time, in spite of already voting for it three times in the past.

because obama is a black muslim?
because the teahadists?

was there another reason? could you provide a good link?


Just google "Republican Opposition to Violence Against Women Act" and look it up. Which is what you should do whether or not it's your preferred party standing in staunch opposition to the American Dreams for Children With Candy Act or the Ponies For Dying Grandmothers Act. Politics is a messy business and neither side is above trying to score political points by claiming that anyone who opposes a bill for any reason hates the people it benefits.

Most of the stuff I read shows opposition to some key language in the bill - not that Republicans necessarily hate women or gays or native americans. If they hated women and gays and native americans and wanted all women to be slaves to them, they wouldn't have passed it 3 times before.

I don't identify with the Republican Party anymore (lost touch with me a long time ago) but it's something everyone needs to learn to do - find out why a bill is opposed rather than just blindly fling spittle at anyone who opposes the Contact Lenses for Blind Nuns bill.
2013-02-01 02:30:51 PM
3 votes:

kombat_unit: coeyagi: kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.

Correct.  Just like Wal-mart and K-mart are of equal might in the retail wars.

Oh shiat, butthurt partisan and so quick.  Bravo with your false equivalence.


Um.... projection.jpg.

Dude, your comment was a false equivalency.  My K-mart / Wal-mart analogy was to point out said false equivalency.

Do you understand how things work here?  Oh, right, we're on the Main page too, where the rubber / glue argument is still en vogue.
2013-02-01 02:14:59 PM
3 votes:
Wasteful litigation.  It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit.  Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
2013-02-01 12:51:59 PM
3 votes:
If only something could have done to make filibustering a bit more difficult.
2013-02-01 12:22:29 PM
3 votes:

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


There are issues that they are at least in the murky gray area on. Like teacher unions. Every teacher I know thinks that the unions are not as efficiently run as they could be and a reform would save time and money in the long run. Except the Republican solution is to get rid of them entirely and then they react like any teacher who doesn't jump for joy at the news that they could lose protection from the parents is a union Marxist thug.
2013-02-01 05:19:26 PM
2 votes:

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 04:57:31 PM
2 votes:
JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


But why does it appear on one side of the aisle so often?


Confirmation bias?

Anyway,

For those who are wanting to read the actual text of the bill, it's here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text You'll have to compare that with the original text.

Criticism of the bill focuses heavily on the fact that it has broad definitions and provides no additional penalties for false accusers (false or unnecessary reports make up nearly 70% of domestic abuse cases). Basically, the bill as it stands is rife with text that can allow vindictive individuals to claim abuse without evidence of abuse and potentially ruin the life of the person they accuse. This is a bad thing, regardless of what side you are on. Is something that makes prosecution of domestic abuse easier worth sending innocent people to prison? SAVE Services, a non-profit abuse awareness group, has a number of reforms they recommend to improve the bill. http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/  . Most of what I see from people defending this bill is "WE SHOULD BE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AAAAAAAGH!" Which is precisely why it was called the Violence Against Women Act. Because it can be an effective political bludgeon for use against opponents (Republicans). "This law helps abuse victims! There is no way this can have negative consequences! Republicans are douchebags for opposing it!" is probably the most ignorant attitude you could have. We should be building better legislation by checking the laws we have for weaknesses and resolving them. Instead we're trying to pass laws to score points and win the PR battle.

/This logic may be more than Fark can handle.
2013-02-01 03:55:25 PM
2 votes:

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.


Such inequalities can be addressed without specifying a group of people. For instance, equal pay:
A law that says something to the effect of, "experience, duties, and performance are the only metrics by which you can differentiate pay rate," is a hell of a lot more egalitarian than, "women must make at least as much as men." The first one addresses the problem dynamically. If there's a field where women are paid more, it helps men. If there's a field where straight folks are paid more, it helps gays. The second one, helps a group that may or may not be on the lesser (or greater) side of an inequality with no attention to context. It also-adjusts for changing social conditions w/o having to stack more and more laws every time you want to add a new 'protected' group.

The most generic form of the problem is the one to address; not throwing laws at subsets until it sort of seems like the whole is vaguely addressed.
2013-02-01 03:55:22 PM
2 votes:

chiefsfaninkc: So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?


Because you can't read THE GOD DAMN THREAD.

//Seriously, just try people, instead of barfing your ignorance upon us.
2013-02-01 03:29:01 PM
2 votes:

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: adding every politically-correct protected group


actually they expanded the bill to include every group AT RISK FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2013-02-01 03:25:41 PM
2 votes:
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 03:13:52 PM
2 votes:

clane: i guess if the name of a Bill sounds good we should just close our eyes and vote yes.


Has it occurred to you that some of us who were upset when the bill did not initially pass knew what was in the bill and approved?

I can't believe how many people here are basically running in and yelling "Guys it's a trick they don't just want to help protect women they also want to help protect gay people, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants!" and expecting progressives to be like "Oh! In that case, fark that!"
2013-02-01 03:00:23 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reposting.  That's a great description and I overlooked it earlier.  Maybe my quoting will help spread it.


Do you have any elaborations on how specifically it "dramatically improved law enforcement responses to domestic violence"?  Is that "improved" as in put more abusers behind bars, or "improved" as in made the process easier for the victims?
Cause I'd like to register an objection on the grounds of "spending money on shiat that's not my problem".  Looks like it's not about improving efforts to prevent violent crimes, just to have the government provide reparations to the victims.  Seems to me that the only people who should be obligated to provi ...


It's not about the government providing "reparations" to victims. It's about getting victims safely out of dangerous situations- which is a fairly complex process. Abuse victims have often been made very  dependent on their abuser for everything- they generally have very little control over their own lives. Getting them out of unsafe situations requires helping them to regain control- which means setting them up with housing, helping them work through divorce proceedings and custody issues, helping them find jobs and otherwise helping them to successfully escape. It's been demonstrated that a coordinated effort- between shelters, prosecutors, family attorneys, counselors, and law enforcement has the greatest rate of success with helping victims escape.

It improved responses to some degree in both ways- it's easier to move forward with prosecution if the victim feels safe enough to press charges, and it's easier on the victim knowing that there's a support network in place.

VAWA helped provide the funds to send up that kind of coordinated response. It also provides funds for pilot programs to try other approaches, including some that focus on counseling and resources for abusers as well.

And as for spending money on shiat that isn't your problem- well, welcome to living in a civilized society.
2013-02-01 02:52:26 PM
2 votes:

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


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

The objections in this thread seem to be:
1) This bill is named for women, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? (Granted, the fact that women are statistically much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence always manages to be conveniently ignored)
2) I don't know what's in this bill so it must be bad
2013-02-01 02:51:47 PM
2 votes:

coeyagi: While I agree with most of that, they sure do have a tough time articulating the reasons for their opposition. Sure, a conservative scholar like Frum might cover for them with his reasons they didn't support it, but most of the time they just whine about the cost.

Look, it's really simple - Person / Corporation / Government Institution does something stupid that hurts a lot of people (in this case, they don't enforce laws on the books to protect women): Government regulation comes in to counteract that.

If the GOP was so great about being the party of personal responsiblity, wouldn't they be preaching it to the conservatives all over the South who beat their wives (granted. it happens in the North of course too)? In the end, the irresponsibility of the conservatives causes these regulations (especially the conservative business owner who figuratively rapes his employees when he can or polutes the environment when he can) - if they acted responsibly, if they had some god damn ethical compass, they would be fine.


The problem isn't that Republicans can't articulate their opposition to it. There are several websites reporting the reasons for why Republicans oppose it this time around - some reasons good and some not. The problem is that nobody here seems to be interested in why this bill hasn't been passed this time after being passed 3 times before. Nobody really wants to discuss whether or not the Violence Against Women Act is still the best plan going forward. It's just "Republicans hate women" and "Republicans are evil."

Of course, look where I am. On Fark. Not that I expected anything more.
2013-02-01 02:45:44 PM
2 votes:

vudukungfu: CapeFearCadaver: Does no one read?

I read the  farking sexist ass title and it's redundant and a waste of time.
Someone deserves to be beaiotch slapped over this.


Er...
2013-02-01 02:40:55 PM
2 votes:

serial_crusher: Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?


Amazing isn't it?

Or scrap the multi-billion dollar set-aside all together and use the 50,000+ laws against violence we already have.

This is a billion dollar political favor fund for lawyers and prosecutors who congress wants to funnel money to.  The problem is, with a name like that, it is impossible to vote against.  Politics as usual, and the sheep fall for it.  As usual.
2013-02-01 02:36:29 PM
2 votes:

CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?


.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.
2013-02-01 02:35:19 PM
2 votes:

CapeFearCadaver: Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill? Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?

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

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


Maybe just expand it to everybody?  You know, make violent crimes equally illegal regardless of who the victims are?
2013-02-01 02:32:27 PM
2 votes:
I thought females were supposed to be "equals" right?

Why do we need "special" farking laws for females?

Or gays, or "minorities"?

Equal under the law right?

I guess farking not.

So if it's "every group for themselves", than I guess we should all just stop pretending we give a fark about anybody outside of our specific "team" right?
2013-02-01 02:31:08 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-01 02:23:54 PM
2 votes:

vudukungfu: How about a violence against PEOPLE act?


That's what this is dude... regarding DV of any sort. Does no one read?
2013-02-01 02:23:47 PM
2 votes:

kericr: Democrats had the opportunity to end this in 2008 when they had a 60 seat supermajority, but nooo, they had to abuse the power republicans originally gave themselves when they had control of the senate in 2004. Guess they didn't think the Republicans would act in universal lockstep all of the time.


They had reauthorized it in 2005 for FYs 2007-2011. Why would they think they need to reauthorize it 2 years early, especially considering that in 1994, 2000 and 2005 it was a pretty easy bill to pass?
2013-02-01 02:23:11 PM
2 votes:
Why should there be separate laws for women?
2013-02-01 02:15:15 PM
2 votes:
Wait, violence against women is legal? Why wasn't I told?
2013-02-01 02:14:12 PM
2 votes:
Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?

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

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


Geez, pretty soon it will only be safe to attack white people.  Err, white men.

fark those guys, amirite?
2013-02-01 02:14:09 PM
2 votes:
Legitimate violence?
2013-02-01 02:12:05 PM
2 votes:
I am surprised to learn that until today violence against women was legal.  huh.
2013-02-01 01:44:13 PM
2 votes:

mahuika: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Good.  Now, let's watch as Boehner shoots himself in the foot again by refusing to vote on it.

Yeah, I was going to say, it barely scraped by in our more functional arm of the legislative branch. Don't go breaking out the spiffy tag yet, subs.


I'm expecting someone in the House threaten to smack a Congresswoman when it comes up for debate, frankly.
2013-02-01 01:05:09 PM
2 votes:
FTFA:
VAWA originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized without incident in 2000 and 2005.

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?
2013-02-02 03:00:19 AM
1 votes:
They passed this and they allow women in combat.  How ironic...
2013-02-02 12:50:54 AM
1 votes:

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.


Funny how you and  Treygreen13 keep chanting over and over that we're ignoring facts that TOTALLY PROVE your point and we are SOOOO ignorant, and we keep saying, "Ok, link us some of those great facts that we've been ignoring!" and then you just go back to step 1.

Why, it's -almost- as if you don't have any facts and you're just liars.  Almost.

And gosh, won't I look silly if you DO go any link something, like a secondary amendment we were all unaware of?  Why, I'd be humiliated!  Egg all over my face!  Wouldn't you enjoy that?  Doesn't it make you want to go cite something at me?

Come on, baby, cite me!  Cite me HARD!
2013-02-01 07:06:26 PM
1 votes:

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 05:30:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:25 PM
1 votes:

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.


So could then, for example, the federal government spend money on requiring all people to wear socks? Love "Twilight?" Learn to rhumba?

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!
2013-02-01 04:33:46 PM
1 votes:
*sigh*
Part of me wants to go nuclear on this thread with the ignore button but I'm starting to feel like it would be very very quiet in here.
2013-02-01 04:29:45 PM
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: 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.

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.


The thing is- in order to present them as totally equal arguments, you have to pretend that the bulk of human history hasn't happened. Women have been historically shortchanged in a lot of ways- we're still pretty drastically underrepresented if you compare government representation to the general population. Things have improved quite a bit, but feminism does tend to focus on overcoming historical inequalities and on changing the way women participate in our culture.
2013-02-01 04:03:26 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:37 PM
1 votes:
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 03:58:18 PM
1 votes:
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 03:53:40 PM
1 votes:
So violence against women is worse then violence against other people because?
2013-02-01 03:48:32 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: 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.

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.


When those classes of people stop being victimized simply because of being those classes of people by assholes and filth who feel the need to victimize those classes of people because of their petty evil reasons, then we can stop making special laws for them.
2013-02-01 03:45:13 PM
1 votes:

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.



286 independent peer reviewed studies.....http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
2013-02-01 03:44:45 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-02-01 03:42:19 PM
1 votes:

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.


Do you actually have examples or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again as usual?
2013-02-01 03:41:55 PM
1 votes:

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?


Because women are not equal and require special protection that others don't require due to their helpless nature. and if you don't agree you are sexist and hate women

It's a derpacrat's world, we are just living in it.
2013-02-01 03:37:27 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-01 03:35:57 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:16 PM
1 votes:
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 03:31:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:04 PM
1 votes:
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 03:29:44 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:43 PM
1 votes:
Is this the thread where morons pretend the bill didnt have a plethora of risers unrelated to women or violence?
2013-02-01 03:28:00 PM
1 votes:
Genevieve Marie, you are a cool broad.
Thanks for the info.

/much respect.
2013-02-01 03:22:27 PM
1 votes:
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 03:22:08 PM
1 votes:

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 03:20:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:08:39 PM
1 votes:

vudukungfu: dericwater: Against Women..." because the preponderance of domestic violence victims are women.

Horseshait.
It's bating and marketing.


Are you saying women are not the main targets of domestic violence?
2013-02-01 03:07:42 PM
1 votes:

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

No.

2013-02-01 03:04:39 PM
1 votes:

STRYPERSWINE: This isn't the first time the Democrats have filled a good-sounding bill full of objectionable stuff so they can point and yell at the Republicans who rightfully vote against it.m I think the last time was a Veterans bill that was full of unrelated pork.  "ZOMG THE GOP HATES VETERANS"


Look up who included the unrelated pork. It's astounding you still haven't caught on to that scam.
2013-02-01 03:03:49 PM
1 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: The legislation itself isn't what bothers me, it's the kind of stupid name for it that bugs me... much like you're seeing in this thread with many people and the term "Violence Against Women Act".


The vast majority of victims of domestic violence and rape are women. The vast majority of the perpetrators are men. There are of course, many exceptions to this rule, but the title of the law reflects the reality of domestic violence and rape in this country.
2013-02-01 03:02:32 PM
1 votes:
I can see the campaign ads now, "Evil Republican Senator X voted against a bill to protect women and little puppies. Vote for Dem Senator Y, (S)he'll stand up to wife and puppy beaters"
you farking libtards are so libtardy.
2013-02-01 03:00:38 PM
1 votes:
This isn't the first time the Democrats have filled a good-sounding bill full of objectionable stuff so they can point and yell at the Republicans who rightfully vote against it.m I think the last time was a Veterans bill that was full of unrelated pork.  "ZOMG THE GOP HATES VETERANS"
2013-02-01 02:57:14 PM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Making illegal things more illegal and name calling the people who don't go along with it? Yeah that sounds like congress.

Oh, look who has no fkn idea what he's talking about.

What a surprise!


Uh, actually, he has a point.  From what I've seen, this bill makes illegal stuff, illegaler.  It's only apparent purpose is to give democrats something to point at to say "See? My opponent even opposed THIS bill".
2013-02-01 02:50:02 PM
1 votes:
A. Name a bill something that you can't argue against on the name alone.

B. Add a bunch of nonsense into it that's unrelated.

C. Lambast the other side when they vote against the "Save the Fluffy Bunnies and Baby Deer" bill.

(Note: I have no idea what is in this bill.)
2013-02-01 02:47:39 PM
1 votes:
It probably pays for alpaca subsidies in Idaho
2013-02-01 02:47:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Holy carp. Do you eat blatant lies for breakfast?


I'm glad I wasn't the only one with that reaction.

Mrtraveler01: They took out the illiegal immigrant part of this law.


That sucks.  Nothing like being held hostage by a sexual and physical abuser knowing that if you run your kids are defenseless and if you report the violent criminal the authorities will deport you.  But hey, screw them and their American-citizen kids, right!  They're not really people and this isn't really civilization.  Also the "visa" was conditional on their compliance with the investigation and served only to keep them from being deported in conjunction with contact with the police absent of any other crimes.

This isn't a hypothetical situation I'm describing, this actually happens quite frequently.  I've met plenty of women in this situation while volunteering at a DV shelter.
2013-02-01 02:45:00 PM
1 votes:

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


If you can provide me with an example of a woman who used an AR15 for self-defense. Then I will retract my previous statement.
2013-02-01 02:42:52 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: Accused?  Really?


Accused, really.
2013-02-01 02:42:27 PM
1 votes:

CruJones: CapeFearCadaver: CruJones: How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?

.
.
.
IT DOES APPLY TO BOTH SEXES.

Then they chose a rather stupid and inaccurate name for it.


Nah, it was actually quite clever. It was chosen as a way to identify people who will complain about a bill but never actually read it.
2013-02-01 02:39:53 PM
1 votes:
I thought women and men were equal. Why do they need special laws?
2013-02-01 02:37:52 PM
1 votes:

djh0101010: GAT_00: Remember kids, the Violence Against Women Act is completely unnecessary and wasteful government legislation.  However, women need unlimited access to guns for protection.

So, you'd rather have women disarmed and waiting for government help, when being attacked?  Seriously?  I knew you were broken, but I didn't think you're THAT broken.


Clearly she needs an AR15. Now I know that Gayle Trotter wasn't able to provide an example of how an AR15 saved a woman's life (the example she used was saved by a shotgun that isn't going to be banned), but maybe you can provide us with one.
2013-02-01 02:37:49 PM
1 votes:

matto22: why it's needed?
FUNDING!!!



It is a known fact that aside from facts having a liberal bias, liberals do not like to use their own money for charity.
2013-02-01 02:37:09 PM
1 votes:

GORDON: I am surprised to learn that until today violence against women was legal.  huh.


Popcorn Johnny: Why should there be separate laws for women?


FirstNationalBastard: Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.


Beyond the fact that only someone completely unfamiliar with the contents of the VAWA could make these claims, it is also significant that the GOP opposition to renewing this Act's funding had nothing to do with gender equality in police protection or the efficacy of its programs.

Their new-found opposition, since the basic outline is unchanged, is due to the scope of the law.  This iteration expanded protection to victims of DV in homosexual couples as well as undocumented immigrants and people on Native reservations.  Nothing to do with the fiscal calculus, nothing to do with "but what about men?" and nothing to do with "motivation" of the crimes.
2013-02-01 02:36:54 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


Read the thread - it's been explained multiple times.
2013-02-01 02:35:12 PM
1 votes:

Hagenhatesyouall: I thought females were supposed to be "equals" right?

Why do we need "special" farking laws for females?

Or gays, or "minorities"?

Equal under the law right?

I guess farking not.

So if it's "every group for themselves", than I guess we should all just stop pretending we give a fark about anybody outside of our specific "team" right?


Wow.  You sound persecuted.  Was it because you're so farkING FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE YOU CAN'T READ THE GODDAMN THREAD TO FIND OUT THE BILL REVOLVES MOSTLY AROUND FUNDING OF SHELTERS AND PROGRAMS FOR ABUSE VICTIMS?  Yeah.  Yeah.  Pretty sure it's because you're a moron.  Moron.
2013-02-01 02:34:44 PM
1 votes:

rustypouch: Why not have a violence against people act?

Unless the people who wrote the VAWA have such a low opinion of women that they think they can't take care of themselves, and need special treatment.


You don't know much about domestic violence, do you? Most people in those relationships won't report it because their partner has convinced them that at best no one cares, or at worst the victim will get in trouble. it's also not uniformly addressed either by laws or law enforcement; some cops are just as bad as the abusers (note I am NOT against LEOs, just facing the truth here).

I read that when NY and other states implemented a new law a couple of years ago allowing the legal system to press charges for 'choking' attacks, DV arrests went through the roof. The explanation is that it doesn't leave very visible markings so cops couldn't make an arrest in most cases; once the law passed they were able to finally do more to curb abusers.

/Never been abused (physically)
//There would be consequences to the abuser, oh yes.
2013-02-01 02:33:44 PM
1 votes:
How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?
2013-02-01 02:33:13 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Holy carp. Do you eat blatant lies for breakfast?
2013-02-01 02:33:06 PM
1 votes:

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


What specific points did the "farking republicans" have a problem with?  Do you know? Can you speak for those points?  It wouldn't be the first time that the, er, let's see, "farking dummycraps" (did I get that right) added some rider to a bill just to make the Republicans look bad when opposing the whole package.  "My opponent voted against blahblah", kind of tactics.

What's the whole story?  I haven't read the whole bill yet, have you?
2013-02-01 02:30:55 PM
1 votes:

kombat_unit: JesusJuice: In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.

Stupidity, immaturity and bigotry are bipartisan.


This is progress. At least Republicans are no longer trying to pretend that they have good ideas about ways to improve the country. I've noticed even the most dedicated right-wing shills/trolls are abandoning most of their talking points beyond, "Government bad!" and "Dems do it too."
2013-02-01 02:30:17 PM
1 votes:
Theeng:

Sometimes Fark gets uncomfortably close to groupthink.

"Sometimes"????
2013-02-01 02:28:04 PM
1 votes:

Endive Wombat: Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?


Doesn't matter what's in it, it's the fact that the Democrats want it to pass.  That one fact immediately results in the folks on the other side automatically screaming "NO".
2013-02-01 02:28:02 PM
1 votes:
Wait, so it's still legal to beat the crap out of men?
2013-02-01 02:27:19 PM
1 votes:

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.


Sunday will be my 30th birthday.  (Some of what I am about to post you all have heard from me, others not)  I was born and raised in VERY Republican Orange County, SoCal by very Republican parents.  As I've gotten older, and as I look back, I am shocked that I ever associated with the Republican Party.  I honestly do not grasp what I consider to be the total lack of compassion for their fellow man from them.

From immigration issues (like kids who were brought here when they were 2 years old and now baring them from getting in state tuition for college, even though they went through the entire public school system all through high school), to their unwavering protection of the wrong doings of corporations, to their indifference to the environment, to their willingness to associate with the extreme religious right and the Tea Party (which alienates moderates), to what seems to be an absolute psychopathic hatred to women (transvaginal ultrasounds, access to basic medical needs and contraception), to the way the LGBTQ community is viewed as an object of hate...I could go on and on.

I am far from a Leftist, there is a lot of what the Republicans preach that I agree with, specifically surrounding how the government chooses to spend its money and some truly crazy, over reaching government regulation.  That being said, the Republican party in my opinion is run by a lot of folks who are truly out of touch with both the middle class/common man and the nations youth.
2013-02-01 02:27:18 PM
1 votes:

Giltric: What does this bill do in regards to charging people with a crime that the regular old laws against violence and murder lack?

How does it protect women if they have to get beaten or murdered in order for the law to apply?


You may want to read the bill, as those questions are answered therein.
2013-02-01 02:26:51 PM
1 votes:

rustypouch: Why not have a violence against people act?

Unless the people who wrote the VAWA have such a low opinion of women that they think they can't take care of themselves, and need special treatment.


TROLL??
because the cops, das and courts were ignoring the laws and treating women like second class citizens.
the WAVA went a long way to help solve THOSE issues. we wouldnt have needed the act in the first place if the men had been properly doing their jobs in the first place.

unless you are just a troll
in which case, we need the act to help kill trolls ...
:D
2013-02-01 02:26:14 PM
1 votes:

sex0r: Wasteful litigation.  It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit.  <b>Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it</b>, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.


And what would those be?
2013-02-01 02:25:46 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-01 02:25:16 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: coeyagi: It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.

Accused?  Really?


Accused, No. Convicted of, or have a DVOP placed against you, yes.
2013-02-01 02:25:10 PM
1 votes:

Nadie_AZ: dittybopper: FTFA:
VAWA originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized without incident in 2000 and 2005.

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?

From your link:

In a 5-4 decision, United States v. Morrison invalidated the section of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact this section.

Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?

Having said that, they only invalidated part of the Act.


Gore Vidal wrote a novel where the term 'Rehnquist' was used for the male sexual organ:

On censoring his own novel, Myron in 1974

"I've removed the dirty words and replaced them with clean words... I thought and thought for a long time: What are the cleanest words I can find? And I discovered that I could not come up with any cleaner words than the names of the five Supreme Court justices who have taken on the task of cleansing this country of pornography. I inserted the words in place of the dirty words. For example, a cock becomes a rehnquist."
2013-02-01 02:22:59 PM
1 votes:

coeyagi: It makes anyone accused of domestic abuse unable to own or use a firearm.


Accused?  Really?
2013-02-01 02:21:59 PM
1 votes:
Let's see what Gayle Trotter, the same woman who thinks women have a right to carry an AR15 for self-defense although she couldn't provide one example of when an AR15 was used for self-defense, thinks about this law.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/gayle-trotter-violence-wo me n-guns.php

Trotter opposed VAWA, she wrote last year, because it opened the door to false accusers wasting taxpayer funds.
"Americans all want to deter violence, but we also need to protect that foundational principle of the presumption of innocence," said her April 2012 post. "Needed resources like shelters and legal aid can be taken by false accusers, denying real victims of abuse access to these supports. That result runs directly counter to the VAWA's spirit."


Oh...
2013-02-01 02:21:18 PM
1 votes:

sex0r: DeathCipris: So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...

They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.


Honestly, that's the same reason I don't understand the whole "hate crime" thing. Generally, you're not beating the shiat out of someone or killing them because you feel the warm fuzzies for them.
2013-02-01 02:20:29 PM
1 votes:

sex0r: Wasteful litigation.  It's already against the law to do the things this stupid piece of legislation purports to prohibit.  Not to mention there certainly are some stupid amendments to it, most likely wasteful entitlement spending added by spend crazy Demoturds, that have nothing to do with the bill itself.


0/10 would not read again
2013-02-01 02:19:34 PM
1 votes:

DeathCipris: So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...


They were already protected under the same laws as everyone else.  This is the equivalent of double secret probation.
2013-02-01 02:17:15 PM
1 votes:
So it protects women and choice minorities from violence? I am ashamed this has to be a law...and even more ashamed it had to be FOUGHT over to get passed...
2013-02-01 02:15:54 PM
1 votes:

JohnAnnArbor: 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.


Who could possibly oppose the PATRIOT Act??  A traitor, that's who!
2013-02-01 02:12:04 PM
1 votes:
A womans body shuts down before a violent act so it is like it never happened... or some shiat.
2013-02-01 02:09:16 PM
1 votes:

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


they do seem to work hard at being as offensive as is humanly possible.
2013-02-01 02:06:47 PM
1 votes:
Not unexpected with a bunch of misogynists involved.
2013-02-01 02:04:44 PM
1 votes:
Before I form any opinion on this one way or the other, what is the reason the GOP has issues with this law/bill?  Can someone explain this to me plainly and clearly?
2013-02-01 01:52:08 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: FTFA:
VAWA originally passed in 1994 and was reauthorized without incident in 2000 and 2005.

Wasn't part of it ruled unconstitutional?


From your link:

In a 5-4 decision, United States v. Morrison invalidated the section of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 that gave victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court, although program funding remains unaffected. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, held that Congress lacked authority, under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact this section.

Why doesn't Congress have authority on this?

Having said that, they only invalidated part of the Act.
2013-02-01 12:17:17 PM
1 votes:

FlashHarry:
"drill, baby, drill?"


Well, not to that extent. But realizing that if we intend to keep our current level of energy use, we are going to have to keep burning fossil fuels for a little while. Not that the Democrats don't acknowledge this to some extent, just trying to find SOMETHING to say they're right about. It's not easy.
2013-02-01 12:05:37 PM
1 votes:

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


"drill, baby, drill?"
2013-02-01 12:03:30 PM
1 votes:

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


Certainly not any social issues. They may have a few decent ideas in some of the finer points of their energy policy maybe.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report