Do you have adblock enabled?
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 48
    More: Spiffy, Violence Against Women Act, Senate, Democrats, senate democrats, Jerry Moran, House Republicans, Dean Heller, domestic violence  
•       •       •

10833 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Feb 2013 at 2:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-01 02:57:47 PM  
4 votes:
Genevieve Marie:
The objections in this thread seem to be:
1) This bill is named for women, WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ? (Granted, the fact that women are statistically much more likely to be victims of rape and domestic violence always manages to be conveniently ignored)



25.media.tumblr.com
2013-02-01 02:13:49 PM  
4 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 01:44:13 PM  
4 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 12:05:37 PM  
4 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 03:25:41 PM  
3 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 12:27:12 PM  
3 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 04:22:49 PM  
2 votes:

Jackson Herring: this thread is causing my eyebrows to climb completely over my head and onto the back of my neck


Those might be caterpillars.
2013-02-01 02:34:03 PM  
2 votes:
I would have introduced an ammendment to change the name to Violence Against Girls Act.

Because VAG Act would be awesome.
2013-02-01 02:31:22 PM  
2 votes:

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


If he does, it's his Constitional right to use an assault rifle with a 100 round clip
2013-02-01 02:29:50 PM  
2 votes:
Now we need a bill on violence against chickens.  I KNOW they will block that one.
2013-02-01 02:25:10 PM  
2 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 02:14:09 PM  
2 votes:
Legitimate violence?
2013-02-01 02:12:04 PM  
2 votes:
A womans body shuts down before a violent act so it is like it never happened... or some shiat.
2013-02-01 02:11:36 PM  
2 votes:
With the way the act is named, if they could convince the Republicans the Violence Against Women Act was endorsing smacking some biatches up because they left the kitchen, this thing would sail through the House with ease.
2013-02-01 12:17:17 PM  
2 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 11:44:32 AM  
2 votes:
farking republicans. is there ANY issue on which they are on the right side?
2013-02-01 04:19:53 PM  
1 votes:
Comic Kathleen Madigan had a bit about how, if she were a politician, she'd name her bills something like 'The be nice to retarded people bill' so that her opponents wouldn't dare vote against it.
Wonder of the person who named this bill saw that set?
2013-02-01 04:13:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Especially since state government is free of bureaucracy and abuse of power.
2013-02-01 03:49:33 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


We hate you, too, honey.
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 03:41:55 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 03:27:10 PM  
1 votes:

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


Did you read that in Honcho?
2013-02-01 03:23:58 PM  
1 votes:
A law that basically targets men, gives women the power to sue even if the man did not commit a crime?

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

Christ. Violence is violence. Same rules for men, and women. Get over it.
2013-02-01 03:20:27 PM  
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: HellRaisingHoosier: CapeFearCadaver:

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


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

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

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


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

Also, it completely ignores the reality that men are just as often victims of domestic violence as women and there is zero support for them.  Men are almost always barred from shelters that provide aid to victims of domestic violence.
2013-02-01 03:13:52 PM  
1 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 03:02:32 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 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 02:49:45 PM  
1 votes:
I oppose the deplorable Violence Against Women Act. It is an abomination and a mark of shame.

How can you not be disgusted that so many supported the Violence Against Women Act while there was not one vote for the Violence Against Women Prevention Act ?

Farking dems should rot in hell
2013-02-01 02:44:32 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-01 02:43:17 PM  
1 votes:

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

Maybe a case could be made that they are on the right side of all the wrong issues.
How does that translate?


As gibberish?
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 02:33:44 PM  
1 votes:
How is this not sexist?  Shouldn't a domestic violence law apply to both sexes?
2013-02-01 02:32:13 PM  
1 votes:

snocone: It's ALL sad and it's bad for ya.

I just have to wonder how much longer we are going to put up with the sociopathic partisan crap.
Time to roll a few heads down the isle to get the Congresscritters' attention.
They no longer fear, nor answer to the citizens. This will only get worse and more painful to correct.
Time to cut the losses.

THIS is why we have 3 million AR-15s privately owned.
Get your chit together, we are gonna need some Real Patriots real soon.


Are you advocating for armed insurrection?

/bracing for weasel worded backpedaling
2013-02-01 02:30:17 PM  
1 votes:
Theeng:

Sometimes Fark gets uncomfortably close to groupthink.

"Sometimes"????
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 02:23:11 PM  
1 votes:
Why should there be separate laws for women?
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 02:22:36 PM  
1 votes:
The Violins Against Women Act is not very effective, since most women prefer guitars anyway.
2013-02-01 02:22:00 PM  
1 votes:
FARK the FARK out of both sides on this one.
How about a violence against PEOPLE act?
MORANS.
Sexist assholes.
2013-02-01 02:19:34 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 02:17:39 PM  
1 votes:
In other news, GOP still composed of lowlife scum.
2013-02-01 02:15:42 PM  
1 votes:
ITT - people who have not read the bill and don't realize that it covers everyone, including straight white men
2013-02-01 02:15:15 PM  
1 votes:
Wait, violence against women is legal? Why wasn't I told?
2013-02-01 02:15:14 PM  
1 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 02:14:12 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?

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 02:09:16 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 02:07:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


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.

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


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

The reauthorization has fallen prey to disputes between a Senate supermajority and House Republicans on whether to expand coverage to gays, illegal immigrants, college students and Native Americans.
2013-02-01 12:24:10 PM  
1 votes:

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


No.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report