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)   Conservatives try to beat down the Violence Against Women Act: "It's unfair to men"   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 213
    More: Asinine, Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence, reauthorization, visitation rights, legal recourse, egalitarianisms, National Turkey Federation  
•       •       •

2654 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



213 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-12 09:43:36 AM
It added: "Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back."

My woman doesn't need any protection.  Biatch can take a punch!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-12 09:47:48 AM
Well, it is a threat to their base.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-12 09:50:11 AM
I couldn't understand why conservative organizations would oppose such a bill, especially since the definition of domestic violence wasn't changed (contrary to their derp about it).

Then I read this: beefs up funding for local law enforcement to prosecute domestic abusers while expanding coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans.

ahhh and now it all becomes clear. I don't know how they feel about Native Americans, but their position regarding the first two has been pretty well documented.
 
2013-02-12 09:50:58 AM
Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards
 
2013-02-12 09:51:35 AM
The ballgargling shiatwizards of course being the conservative group from the article
 
2013-02-12 09:54:40 AM

Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards


Dammit. Well there go my plans to travel to Las Vegas for the annual Beat Your Man Like The Rented Mule That He Is convention.
 
2013-02-12 09:55:51 AM
What war on women?
 
2013-02-12 09:59:12 AM

miss diminutive: Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards

Dammit. Well there go my plans to travel to Las Vegas for the annual Beat Your Man Like The Rented Mule That He Is convention.


It's all about shared sacrifices.
 
2013-02-12 10:00:52 AM

Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards


I'm sure that's not what they're concerned about.
 
2013-02-12 10:06:02 AM

miss diminutive: I don't know how they feel about Native Americans, but their position regarding the first two has been pretty well documented.


they're poor and not white. you can probably guess how the republicans feel about them based on that criteria.
 
2013-02-12 10:06:38 AM
Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?
 
2013-02-12 10:06:53 AM
FreedomWorks also worried that the legislation would be unfair to men.

"The newest version of the VAWA, S.47, contains very vague and broad definitions of domestic violence," the organization wrote. "A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA. Calling your spouse a mean name is not advised or polite, but it isn't the same thing as violence towards her."

 ... except that those definitions also apply to women, so how exactly is this unfair to men specifically? Unless FreedomWorks is saying that men cannot stop themselves from committing domestic violence? Frankly, I think that's unfair of FreedomWorks to men.
 
2013-02-12 10:07:17 AM

R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?


Maybe you should read what the bill does?
 
2013-02-12 10:07:29 AM

R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?


Serious question: know how I know you've never read the bill or anything about it other than the title?
 
2013-02-12 10:07:44 AM
FTA: "A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA."

What an interesting definition the right wing has of what constitutes apparently acceptable, non-criminal behavior toward women.
 
2013-02-12 10:08:09 AM

miss diminutive: Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards

Dammit. Well there go my plans to travel to Las Vegas for the annual Beat Your Man Like The Rented Mule That He Is convention.


I have a friend that would pay good money for that.
 
2013-02-12 10:08:30 AM
Why would anyone be opposed to this?
 
2013-02-12 10:09:08 AM

Diogenes: It added: "Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back."


Now spread that there cooter for this here ultrasound wand.
 
2013-02-12 10:09:28 AM

Theaetetus: R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?

Serious question: know how I know you've never read the bill or anything about it other than the title?


Well yeah, is that really necessary here?
 
2013-02-12 10:09:37 AM

miss diminutive: I couldn't understand why conservative organizations would oppose such a bill, especially since the definition of domestic violence wasn't changed (contrary to their derp about it).

Then I read this: beefs up funding for local law enforcement to prosecute domestic abusers while expanding coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans.

ahhh and now it all becomes clear. I don't know how they feel about Native Americans, but their position regarding the first two has been pretty well documented.


IIRC, this was Eric Cantor's explicit reason for voting against it.
 
2013-02-12 10:09:47 AM
A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA.

What in the fark is wrong with these people? Seriously how can one defend stalking?
 
2013-02-12 10:09:51 AM

miss diminutive: Jackson Herring: Domestic violence against men is also covered in the bill, you farking ballgargling shiatwizards

Dammit. Well there go my plans to travel to Las Vegas for the annual Beat Your Man Like The Rented Mule That He Is convention.


Beating your man because he asked nicely and got you a new flogger is still cool though, right?
 
2013-02-12 10:10:41 AM
Um...I used to be a beat cop a long time ago. Now I'd get called out on domestic disputes all the time, hundreds probably over the years. But there was this one guy, this one piece of shiat, that I will never forget. Gordy. He looked like Bo Svenson. Remember him? "Walking Tall"? You don't remember? Anyway, big boy. 270, 280. But his wife, or whatever she was, a lady, she was real small, like a bird. Wrists like little branches. Anyway, my partner and I get called out there every weekend and one of us would pull her aside and say, "C'mon, tonight's the night. Press charges." And this wasn't one of those "deep down he really loves me" set ups, we get a lot of those, but not this. This girl was scared. She wasn't gonna cross him no way, no how. Nothing we could do but pass her off to the EMTs, put him in the car, drive him downtown, throw him in the drunk tank, he sleeps it off, next morning out he goes back home. One night, my partner is out sick and it's just me. Then the call comes in and it's the usual crap. Broken nose in the shower kind of thing. So I cuff him, put him in the car and away we go. Only that night, we're driving into town, and this sideways asshole is in my backseat humming "Danny Boy." And it just rubbed me the wrong way. So instead of left, I go right, out into nowhere, and I kneel him down and I put my revolver in his mouth and I told him, "This is it. This is how it ends." And he's crying, going to the bathroom all over himself, swearing to God he's gonna leave her alone, screaming as much as you can with a gun in your mouth. And I told him to be quiet and I needed to think about what I was gonna do here. And of course he got quiet. Goes still and real quiet, like a dog waiting for dinner scraps. And we just stood there for a while, me acting like I'm thinking things over and Prince Charming kneeling in the dirt with shiat in his pants. After a few minutes I took the gun out of his mouth and I say so help me if you ever touch her again and such and such and such and such and blah blah blah blah blah.

Just trying to do the right thing. But two weeks later he killed her. Of course. Caved her head in with the base of Waring blender. We got there and there was so much blood you can taste the metal. The moral of the story is I chose a half measure when I should have gone all the way. I'll never make that mistake again.

No more half measures, Walter.
 
2013-02-12 10:12:20 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA.

What in the fark is wrong with these people? Seriously how can one defend stalking?


You have a constitutional right to walk and look at people, right? Boom - lawyered.
 
2013-02-12 10:13:22 AM
While I recognize the good the VAWA has done, and of course anything that annoys Republicans I will presume to be a good thing, the fact remains that I'm a little bit suspicious of efforts to federalize crimes which have traditionally been state matters. Just a small, nagging doubt tempering an otherwise enthusiastic response.
 
2013-02-12 10:13:58 AM
RoxtarRyan:

clap.  clap.  clap.
 
2013-02-12 10:14:12 AM

vpb: Well, it is a threat to their base.

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 222x227]


You know, that would make a great idea for a campaign commercial.  Instead of the pictures of the Congresscritters against VAWA, they should post pictures of guys like this one.

Then watch Conservatives go apeshiat/meltdown over an "unfair" portrayal of their "stance".
 
2013-02-12 10:14:25 AM
It added: "Supporters of the VAWA portray women as helpless victims - this is the kind of attitude that is setting women back."

Mind you, attackers of the VAWA also tend to portray women seeking abortions as helpless victims who require mandatory waiting periods, counseling, brochures, and videos so that they can finally understand that they're seeking an abortion.
 
2013-02-12 10:15:28 AM
We need a Violence Against Women Act for one simple reason: biology.

Women are inherently and by Design the weaker sex.  This is an inescapable scientific fact.  Just as women are too weak to be able to withstand, and must be protected from, combat, so too are they too weak and must be protected from domestic violence.

And just as women are designed to be weak, men are also endowed by our Creator with the propensity for violence.  Larger muscles, increased testosterone, the stress of having to provide for their families - men are naturally pushed towards acting out aggressively.  Historically, these tendencies would be expressed by joining the military, or protecting their families from wild animals or rampaging Injuns / drugged out negros.  But in these woebegone days where the draft has been repealed and it is no longer politically correct to 'stand your ground', these outlets are no longer available.  But since the tendencies remain, they must be expressed somehow.

Women are also the only sex capable of providing Our Great Nation with the next generation of legal American citizens - despite what liberals would have you believe about lesbos being able to raise kids, or some lamestream media report about a pregnant 'man'.  If women are not coddled, defended, and kept safe, then this land will inevitably become overrun with foreign cultures and ideas.  You can already see this happening in the liberal 'utopias' such as California, Florida, and New York.

The only question now is these two groups want to see this nation devalued and degraded by allowing the lilies of our womanhood to be bruised by violence.  The VAWA is not unfair to men - any man who cannot protect himself from him woman is a weak specimen who deserves naught but our scorn and derision.  Just like the RINO's at Heritage and Freedomworks.
 
2013-02-12 10:15:46 AM
Conservative opposition to this is solely due to any provisions involving gays or illegal aliens, period. The rest of it is fabricated nonsense to cover up their bigotry.
 
2013-02-12 10:16:23 AM
Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed?

Holy jesus farking christ can anyone on the internet read or remember things from more than 10 minutes ago
 
2013-02-12 10:16:29 AM
Somehow I'm betting that if there was a provision that provided protection to CEOs who were beaten by their shareholders they could warm to it...
 
2013-02-12 10:16:40 AM

BMulligan: While I recognize the good the VAWA has done, and of course anything that annoys Republicans I will presume to be a good thing, the fact remains that I'm a little bit suspicious of efforts to federalize crimes which have traditionally been state matters. Just a small, nagging doubt tempering an otherwise enthusiastic response.


What cromes does VAWA federalize?
 
2013-02-12 10:17:46 AM

THX 1138: RoxtarRyan:

clap.  clap.  clap.


And now I'm trying to remember what movie that's from.

// you know what's REALLY unfair to men?
// the way we're profiled over the whole rape thing
// maybe if rape/sexual assault weren't a thing that happened all-too-often, we wouldn't have to feel bad about it (and that actually goes for the ladies as well)
 
2013-02-12 10:18:28 AM
Rapepublicans don't want this to pass because they don't want to get in trouble for mandating the transvaginal rape wands.
 
2013-02-12 10:18:37 AM

R.A.Danny: Serious question: Why are special, gender specific laws needed? Isn't an assault an assault? Isn't assaulting another human being just as bad if the victim is male or female?


I don't know - why do we need any crimes other than assault? Maybe if you thought about it for more than 5 minutes you'd understand it a little better.
 
2013-02-12 10:19:57 AM
Maybe if every single post in this thread was just "VAWA is not gender-specific" some people would get the farking point
 
2013-02-12 10:20:00 AM
The GOP has no is no war on women
 
2013-02-12 10:21:53 AM

Jackson Herring: Maybe if every single post in this thread was just "VAWA is not gender-specific" some people would get the farking point


That is the point though.  The GOP isn't butthurt about it re-passing.  They just don't want the gays to be treated equally.  Because it is what Jesus would have wanted.
 
2013-02-12 10:22:09 AM

Citrate1007: The GOP has no is no war on women


Agreed.
 
2013-02-12 10:22:10 AM

hubiestubert: Somehow I'm betting that if there was a provision that provided protection to CEOs who were beaten by their shareholders they could warm to it...


More women are becoming CEO's.

How about we frame this as an attempt to protect the Female Job Creators from being attacked and harassed by their subordinates?
 
2013-02-12 10:22:45 AM
What exactly do you idiot libs want?

You make fun of conservatives when they have secret gay relationships.  You won't let them beat and rape their women.  If you stupid farks had your way, conservatives would never get laid!
 
2013-02-12 10:22:46 AM

Dr Dreidel: THX 1138: RoxtarRyan:

clap.  clap.  clap.

And now I'm trying to remember what movie that's from.

// you know what's REALLY unfair to men?
// the way we're profiled over the whole rape thing
// maybe if rape/sexual assault weren't a thing that happened all-too-often, we wouldn't have to feel bad about it (and that actually goes for the ladies as well)


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-12 10:22:47 AM

Dr Dreidel: // you know what's REALLY unfair to men?
// the way we're profiled over the whole rape thing


Mind you, it's pretty unfair to women that they get told that a successful rape prosecution will depend on how short their skirt is, how big their breasts are, how many people they've had sex with, or what they had to drink. Fortunately, both the profiling and victim blaming can be addressed simultaneously, once we as a society start focusing on the research that shows the majority of rapes are committed by a small number of serial rapists and habitual predators who commit, on average, 6 rapes. Accordingly, the majority of men are not rapists. Similarly, those serial rapists intentionally target women who will be blamed by society - it's not about the short skirt, but about the fact that juries are less likely to convict if she wears a short skirt - so if we address that, we get rid of the blaming.
 
2013-02-12 10:23:28 AM
Last time it was this would provide protection to Native American and immigrant women who don't deserve it. I am sure this one will go over just as well.
 
2013-02-12 10:23:59 AM

BMulligan: While I recognize the good the VAWA has done, and of course anything that annoys Republicans I will presume to be a good thing, the fact remains that I'm a little bit suspicious of efforts to federalize crimes which have traditionally been state matters. Just a small, nagging doubt tempering an otherwise enthusiastic response.


A year or two ago some town in Kansas (there's a shocker) decriminalized domestic violence because they didn't want to spend the money prosecuting the sheer number of wife-beaters that lived in their town. These cases in turn got kicked up the ladder to the state level, and - since this is Kansas we're talking about again - they didn't want to spend the money prosecuting the sheer number of wife-beaters that lived in their state. I'm not sure whether or not this was rectified, but for a while there you could beat the shiat out of your wife with impunity in Kansas.

As much as I would love to, we can't just write off the weakest and most vulnerable among us because they happen to live in a state where they'd rather legalize beating your wife than raise the sales tax a tenth of a percent.
 
2013-02-12 10:27:52 AM
So the GOP is back to not wanting to win national elections again ever, huh?
 
2013-02-12 10:28:03 AM

DamnYankees: I don't know - why do we need any crimes other than assault? Maybe if you thought about it for more than 5 minutes you'd understand it a little better.


Yeah, but are their 50 kinds of assault or 5000 kinds of assault and does the law really always need that granularity?
 
2013-02-12 10:28:54 AM

Jackson Herring: ballgargling shiatwizards


This is the name of my next band.
 
2013-02-12 10:29:17 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: A man that raises his voice at his partner, calls her an offensive name, stalks her, causes her any emotional distress, or simply just annoys her can potentially be prosecuted under the VAWA.

What in the fark is wrong with these people? Seriously how can one defend stalking?


This.

Also, they're lying about the "emotional distress" bit.  Heritage and Freedom Works people want to make people think that the reauthorization would make hurt feelings "domestic violence," but (as expected from those groups) that's complete horseshiat.  The phrase "emotional distress" appears only within the section of the bill devoted to stalking, and only applies where someone has the "itntent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate," and engages in conduct that causes emotional distress.
 
Displayed 50 of 213 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report