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.

(USA Today)   Senate passes Violence Against Women act by landslide. Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: News, Violence Against Women Act, violence against women, Sen. Patrick Leahy, House Republicans, domestic violence, federal courts, House Majority Leader  
•       •       •

3506 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 7:15 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



320 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-12 03:55:26 PM  
22 Patriotic Christians.
 
2013-02-12 03:57:45 PM  
That's OK, there's plenty more in the GOP House that won't pass it.
 
2013-02-12 03:58:14 PM  
I thought it was already illegal to hit people.
 
2013-02-12 04:00:14 PM  
They gotta keep they pimp han' strong!
 
2013-02-12 04:03:00 PM  
For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
 
2013-02-12 04:03:09 PM  
Great, now those women are going to be running rampant, taking advantage of their protected status.
 
2013-02-12 04:08:12 PM  
78-22 is no landslide.

/Dick Morris math
 
2013-02-12 04:12:13 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Hmmm... both Senators from the Equality State voted against the VAWA. Perhaps they felt women were somehow *too* equal.
 
2013-02-12 04:13:40 PM  
No, submitter, the VAWA also protects male victims of domestic violence.
 
2013-02-12 04:16:43 PM  
I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-02-12 04:18:34 PM  
Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.
 
2013-02-12 04:20:32 PM  

wxboy: Orrin Hatch (R-UT)


First, I'm glad to see both of my Senators voted for it. 2nd, this guy should have his mormon underjammies revoked.
 
2013-02-12 04:21:13 PM  
Apparently those 22 are still pissed that the Senate voted down their proposed "I already told her twice" amendment.
 
2013-02-12 04:22:23 PM  
In the interest of fairness, here's a list of Democrat Senators who voted Nay:
 
2013-02-12 04:24:29 PM  

cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.


There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.
 
2013-02-12 04:51:05 PM  
During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.
 
2013-02-12 04:52:56 PM  
IIRC, there's a chance it might help non-citizens, so fark 'em all.
 
2013-02-12 05:47:32 PM  
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh
 
2013-02-12 05:54:30 PM  
ANd they are all Republicans, but I'm a big meanie for pointing that out, aren't I?
 
2013-02-12 05:58:56 PM  
Oh boy!  Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.


Here's one now!  It's almost as if this guy has no fkn idea what VAWA is, but gosh-dern, he's agin' it!
 
2013-02-12 06:03:37 PM  

Raharu: I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.


No one knows.  Liberals are always on the right side, and after a generation or so, conservatives tell themselves that they were, too.  Did you know that MLK and Rosa Parks were big defenders of the 2nd Amendment?
 
2013-02-12 06:10:17 PM  
Remember folks, if you disliked the bill because its name sounds sexist against men, you're an idiot because the content of the bill doesn't actually have anything to do with preventing violence.

But the 22 guys who voted against it based on its content are sexists who actually favor violence against women, because "just look at the name, who would vote against that?".


/ Anyhow, if we're going to make bookcover judgments about it, aren't those 22 republicans heroes for opposing Violence Against Women?  Everybody else voted for Violence Against Women, so clearly they're the real sexists.
 
2013-02-12 06:18:34 PM  

GAT_00: That's OK, there's plenty more in the GOP House that won't pass it.


that'd do wonders for their re-election chances.
 
2013-02-12 06:27:47 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: That's OK, there's plenty more in the GOP House that won't pass it.

that'd do wonders for their re-election chances.


Considering the districts they likely represent, your statement isn't as sarcastic as you might think.
 
2013-02-12 06:30:13 PM  

SilentStrider: Weaver95: GAT_00: That's OK, there's plenty more in the GOP House that won't pass it.

that'd do wonders for their re-election chances.

Considering the districts they likely represent, your statement isn't as sarcastic as you might think.


I have high hopes for the tea party/GOP insider slap fight to shake up the establishment enough to make the Republicans vulnerable.
 
2013-02-12 06:33:54 PM  
Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans
 
2013-02-12 06:43:13 PM  

ManateeGag: IIRC, there's a chance it might help non-citizens, so fark 'em all.


Yeah, if someone beats the living crap out of their undocumented wife, or an undocumented woman is raped, she won't be immediately deported for seeking justice against someone who beats the crap out of women or a rapist.  Some truly, truly devastating stuff for people who abuse women all over the country. You can't ever be too careful about not alienating the ever-important (to the GOP) rapist vote.
 
2013-02-12 07:12:49 PM  

Zunigene: Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh


Someone has already decided to take some time off to spend with family in 2016, I guess.
 
2013-02-12 07:18:28 PM  

wxboy: Mike Johanns (R-NE)


God dammit, every time I think maybe we're one of the last  good red states, shiat like this happens.
 
2013-02-12 07:18:55 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.
 
2013-02-12 07:19:30 PM  

FloydA: Zunigene: Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh

Someone has already decided to take some time off to spend with family in 2016, I guess.


it's going to be awesome if its him vs Hillary and he stuffed this loaded clip in her pocket.
 
2013-02-12 07:19:58 PM  
I like how these bills are straight forward and there is nothing in the bill except one sentence saying its illegal to hit women.
 
2013-02-12 07:20:58 PM  
angryblackladychronicles.com

Their faces make want to commit violence.
 
2013-02-12 07:21:35 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


I am shocked and pleased not to see Senator Burr's name on that list.
 
2013-02-12 07:21:46 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?
 
2013-02-12 07:21:48 PM  

serial_crusher: Remember folks, if you disliked the bill because its name sounds sexist against men, you're an idiot because the content of the bill doesn't actually have anything to do with preventing violence.

But the 22 guys who voted against it based on its content are sexists who actually favor violence against women, because "just look at the name, who would vote against that?".


/ Anyhow, if we're going to make bookcover judgments about it, aren't those 22 republicans heroes for opposing Violence Against Women?  Everybody else voted for Violence Against Women, so clearly they're the real sexists.


If you disliked the bill because its name sounds sexist against men, you're an idiot because the bill provides the same protections for men and women; the name is just stupid, but that's not new.

The 22 guys who voted against it aren't necessarily sexist, since at least a few of them disliked it because it extended those protections to gays. So they may just be bigoted shiat.
 
2013-02-12 07:22:15 PM  
Rubio?  Really?  Gotta say, I'm surprised about that one.
 
2013-02-12 07:22:44 PM  
^ make me
 
2013-02-12 07:24:30 PM  

dookdookdook: wxboy: Mike Johanns (R-NE)

God dammit, every time I think maybe we're one of the last  good red states, shiat like this happens.


There are no good red states. Period. Full stop.

Every representative that comes to DC from one of those backwards shiatholes winds up voting like him (or doing something equally idiotic). The only good thing I'll say is that they represent their slack jawed, inbred, yokel base perfectly.
 
2013-02-12 07:25:35 PM  

serial_crusher: Remember folks, if you disliked the bill because its name sounds sexist against men, you're an idiot because the content of the bill doesn't actually have anything to do with preventing violence.

But the 22 guys who voted against it based on its content are sexists who actually favor violence against women, because "just look at the name, who would vote against that?".


/ Anyhow, if we're going to make bookcover judgments about it, aren't those 22 republicans heroes for opposing Violence Against Women?  Everybody else voted for Violence Against Women, so clearly they're the real sexists.


What the fark am I reading here? All it's missing is a "best part................forever".
 
2013-02-12 07:25:52 PM  

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.


You would think that.  But sometimes, you'd be wrong.
Such as when Topeka, Kansas repealed it's laws against domestic violence because there were so many cases they couldn't afford to prosecute them.

Want to know why the federal government keeps growing; keeps stepping into local school systems, local law enforcement cases, local matters usually regarded as 'states rights'?  It's because local and state governments keep farking up and someone has to pick up the slack.  Don't blame the plunger because you stopped up the toilet.
 
2013-02-12 07:26:41 PM  
22 men waiting for their sammy?
 
2013-02-12 07:30:14 PM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


What?  It's an amazing cross section of Americans from all walks of life, a celebration of our diversity!  Look--there's a black guy!
 
2013-02-12 07:30:15 PM  

meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?


Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.
 
2013-02-12 07:31:29 PM  

timswar: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

I am shocked and pleased not to see Senator Burr's name on that list.


I was surprised not to see Toomey.
 
2013-02-12 07:31:32 PM  

Karac: dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

You would think that.  But sometimes, you'd be wrong.
Such as when Topeka, Kansas repealed it's laws against domestic violence because there were so many cases they couldn't afford to prosecute them.

Want to know why the federal government keeps growing; keeps stepping into local school systems, local law enforcement cases, local matters usually regarded as 'states rights'?  It's because local and state governments keep farking up and someone has to pick up the slack.  Don't blame the plunger because you stopped up the toilet.




That's because Kansas is the bastion of small government politics.  So to bad for you women if your abused, they've got better things like ensuring that no abortion clinic can meet rules to ensure your rape baby is safe.
 
2013-02-12 07:31:55 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


It's nice to know that one of my Senators, Barbara Mikulski, could beat all their asses to a pulp.
 
2013-02-12 07:34:13 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Ahh, the Usual Suspects, I see! And they even rounded themselves up, thereby saving the Inspector the trouble of searching for them!
 
2013-02-12 07:34:20 PM  

Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.

 
2013-02-12 07:34:37 PM  
doesn't suprise me at all that Roy Blunt is on this list.

Flashback to August 1995, a young Rreal is standing in the 'chapel' of one Southwest Baptist University, where the president of the college, one Roy Blunt is on his knees, swearing to god and everybody assembled that he will never -ever- go into politics again.

The fact he's a Senator know goes to show he's a lying asshat who doesn't hold to his own oaths, then again, we don't know if he got a 'revelation from god' (read: bribe) to do it

Granted, Southern Baptists have "women exist to be barefoot and pregnant and subservient t man" as part of their officical doctrine, so I'm not suprised he didn't vote for a law that'd make it a crime to "Smack a biatch"

Sad part is, I bet a good half of that same freshman class I was part of all voted for this asshole.
 
2013-02-12 07:35:09 PM  

timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.


Let's be honest, it's a good chunk of the Whos Who of Senate Assholes. Then again, I think most of the senate would probably qualify.
 
2013-02-12 07:35:18 PM  
Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.

The actual parts of the bill with legal force (allowing you to sue in federal court over sexual assault/harassment even if the state found insufficient evidence or acquitted on the criminal case) was removed by a high court ruling (iirc it went all the way to the Supremes, but not 100% sure on that one) due to jurisdictional and double-jeopardy concerns.  All that left was the funding for domestic violence education, officer training, and shelters, which I would argue are a worthwhile investment but would willingly put in the "reasonable people can disagree" category since it's not all _that_ much money and most funding is still local.

//Naming your bill the "we love fluffy bunnies and giving puppies to lonely orphans act of 2013" or whatever is an old, old trick and the name doesn't necessarily reflect the actual effect of a given bill.  See also PATRIOT.
 
2013-02-12 07:35:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.


They don't want Patriotic Americanstm under the jurisdiction of ferriners. And by "ferriners" I mean the people that were here before us.
 
2013-02-12 07:37:21 PM  

born_yesterday: AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.

What?  It's an amazing cross section of Americans from all walks of life, a celebration of our diversity!  Look--there's a black guy!


I think he voted no to prove he wasn't uppity.
 
2013-02-12 07:37:32 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans


what is the likelihood that Boehner even brings it to a vote?

while he doesn't seem to mind violating the Hastert rule so much, this is one I'm not sure what to expect from him...
 
2013-02-12 07:38:25 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.


They were against it when Clinton was President, for it when Bush was President, and against it when Obama was President.

There's a consistency, alright, but it has nothing to do with principles concerning spending.
 
2013-02-12 07:41:12 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.

The actual parts of the bill with legal force (allowing you to sue in federal court over sexual assault/harassment even if the state found insufficient evidence or acquitted on the criminal case) was removed by a high court ruling (iirc it went all the way to the Supremes, but not 100% sure on that one) due to jurisdictional and double-jeopardy concerns.   All that left was the funding for domestic violence education, officer training, and shelters, which I would argue are a worthwhile investment but would willingly put in the "reasonable people can disagree" category since it's not all _that_ much money and most funding is still local.

//Naming your bill the "we love fluffy bunnies and giving puppies to lonely orphans act of 2013" or whatever is an old, old trick and the name doesn't necessarily reflect the actual effect of a given bill.  See also PATRIOT.


You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.
 
2013-02-12 07:42:33 PM  
I've I've learned anything from the past 20 years, it's that the names of bills are bullshiat.  While I don't know if there's anything really objectionable in this, I'm quite sure that a true patriot would have voted against the PATRIOT Act.
 
2013-02-12 07:42:52 PM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


Is it me, or does every single one of them look like they have personal experience molesting their own daughters?
 
2013-02-12 07:43:56 PM  
News Flash > Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Does not like the females .
 
2013-02-12 07:44:02 PM  
The good news is that they are still against violence for women.
 
2013-02-12 07:44:50 PM  
So, old white men and Uncle Rukus.
 
2013-02-12 07:45:51 PM  

Raharu: Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.


Here's his explanation:

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement. "These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.

Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
 
2013-02-12 07:52:09 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.


I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.
 
2013-02-12 07:53:48 PM  
Courageous Oklahomans not protecting Oklahoma women, except from their own vagina's,

Amirite?
 
2013-02-12 07:55:24 PM  
These boots are made for walkin'.
 
2013-02-12 07:56:06 PM  
"...Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women."

Wait, I've been told that even though the title of the bill contains women in it, that it protects men, too.  So, which is it submitter?
 
2013-02-12 07:57:03 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?
 
2013-02-12 07:58:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.


Know what else is underfunded, by a lot more than this, and will benefit humanity in general more than basically anything we can do on this planet?  NASA.  Close second: the NSA.  But at some point I can accept that we have limited money and have to decide where to spend it, and the people that disagree with me aren't secretly Hitler and probably have a perspective as valid as my own.

Basically, you're in a democracy, deal with it and stop being a jackass.

//Also, your sentence-parsing skills could use some work since you even bolded the sentence but got my position exactly the opposite of correct despite it being right there in front of you.
 
2013-02-12 07:58:42 PM  
Good! Men are pigs anyway
 
2013-02-12 08:00:12 PM  
NSF, was supposed to be my second example, not NSA.  The NSA is terrible.

Too many damned alphabet agencies.
 
2013-02-12 08:03:00 PM  

cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.


Did you have the same attitude 10 years ago?
 
2013-02-12 08:05:01 PM  
So basically 22 senators read the law and saw how horrible it was.  The other 78 are morons, including all democrats
 
2013-02-12 08:06:01 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Good! Men are pigs anyway


Not just men, if I'm reading this correctly:

"Over 160 million women across the country are watching and waiting to see if the House will act on this bill and finally provide them the protections from violence they deserve," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
 
2013-02-12 08:06:28 PM  

timswar: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

I am shocked and pleased not to see Senator Burr's name on that list.


You're right.  Wow, did Hagan knock some sense into him?
 
2013-02-12 08:07:19 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)



Fark you Orrin! And you Mike! God I hate my farking stupid ass state!
 
2013-02-12 08:09:30 PM  

Zunigene: Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh


Someone better tell Marco they keep records of this type of shiat if he wants to run in 2016.
 
2013-02-12 08:09:33 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Yeah, I'll be sending campaign checks to their Democratic opponents as soon as their time is up.
 
2013-02-12 08:12:40 PM  

Raharu: Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or


I'm guessing Rubio's got short-term memory loss problems; otherwise, he would've remembered that Romney got nailed for all his flubs.

B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.

Wonder how many of the idiot/bigots will be holding their nose to vote for Rubio if he gets the nod in 2016.
 
2013-02-12 08:16:03 PM  
Has anyone bothered to look into why these guys objected to renewal of VAWA other than "they were republic*nts- that's why")?  I'm sure there must have been some sort of conflict that would make them so overtly against protection women from violence and face obvious public ridicule from both opponants and constituants alike- seems rather a bold move simply to prove they were all asshats.

Was it concern over the Indians being able to basically createand enforce their own law and how it is applied to "outsiders" who would normally be subject to state and federal law?  Was there concern that this may create a pecedent for other communities to enforce their own version of law rather than following the law of the land?

Regardless- I'm R but am still backing the defeat of ol' Mitch.  As far as I'm concerned, he 's run his course no matter which side of the fence he was on this issue anyhow.
 
2013-02-12 08:16:56 PM  

timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.


Don't ignore the fact that Mark Kirk (D-IL) didn't vote.

/sorry if he's sick again
 
2013-02-12 08:23:27 PM  

Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.


Wait this is almost on the level of "I'm not sure that it it not unopposite day" but if I understand he is saying that he doesn't want the courts on the reservations to be able to try criminals who aren't Native Americans.
I don't get this, I don't get this at all.  If I travel to New York and speed I can't say you can't put me on trial  I am from PA.
Do Republicans really want to be able to go on reservations and abuse Native American Women?
 
2013-02-12 08:23:41 PM  

clowncar on fire: Has anyone bothered to look into why these guys objected to renewal of VAWA other than "they were republic*nts- that's why")?  I'm sure there must have been some sort of conflict that would make them so overtly against protection women from violence and face obvious public ridicule from both opponants and constituants alike- seems rather a bold move simply to prove they were all asshats.

Was it concern over the Indians being able to basically createand enforce their own law and how it is applied to "outsiders" who would normally be subject to state and federal law?  Was there concern that this may create a pecedent for other communities to enforce their own version of law rather than following the law of the land?

Regardless- I'm R but am still backing the defeat of ol' Mitch.  As far as I'm concerned, he 's run his course no matter which side of the fence he was on this issue anyhow.


"Republicans had threatened to block VAWA, which is generally renewed every five years, over new amendments which would introduce protections for undocumented immigrants, LGBT people and those living on Native American reservations".

Oh.  Nevermind.   *sigh*
 
2013-02-12 08:24:19 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.


It's a serious issue, despite the Republicans' stonewalling. Tribal courts are not required to enforce constitutional rights.
 
2013-02-12 08:28:09 PM  
What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.
 
2013-02-12 08:30:18 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


Nice to see these brave men take a principled stand concerning our God-given Constitutional right to harm women.
 
2013-02-12 08:30:45 PM  
Oddly from TFA:

During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

...

Two House Republicans - Reps. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who is of Native American heritage, and Darrell Issa of California - have been pushing a compromise that would give defendants the right to request that their trial be moved to a federal court if they felt they were not getting a fair trial. Others have argued that those tried in Indian courts should have better defined rights to appeal to federal courts.


That sounds a lot more reasonable than the stuff people have been making up in this thread.  Is it really that tough to RTFA?
 
2013-02-12 08:32:54 PM  
Bets with self:
1) All those against were R.
2) Ron Johnson, that disgusting farkwit, voted against it.
3) Rand Paul voted against it.
4) Turtle-man voted against it.

[checks article]

4 for 4! Yay me!  Boo everyone that supports these disgusting pieces of filth.
 
2013-02-12 08:33:04 PM  

Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.


They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.
 
2013-02-12 08:34:55 PM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


My lucky stars! A negro!
 
2013-02-12 08:35:32 PM  
admittedly a little biased but a good (though superficial) overview of the tribal jurisdiction issue in VAWA....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/226743-vawa-trib al -provisions-are-constitutionally-sound
 
2013-02-12 08:36:31 PM  
Why should Native people be allowed to prosecute non-natives.
Jurisdictional conflicts make it difficult to arrest and prosecute non-Natives for crimes committed against Natives.Complications with investigations and court proceedings involving sexual assault and domestic violence cases further decrease likelihood of prosecutions.
"It's almost like non-Native people have a license to brutalize Native women," says Tina Olson,co-director of Mending the Sacred Hoop in Duluth, Minn.According to its website, the group works "to end violence against Native women and children while restoring the safety, sovereignty, and sacredness of Native women."
 http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/law-enforcement-gaps-lea ve- native-women-vulnerable-rape-and-domestic-violence-1

.
 
2013-02-12 08:36:40 PM  

Master of the Flying Guillotine: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

Nice to see these brave men take a principled stand concerning our God-given Constitutional right to harm women.


I must've read it differently- I thought they had a few issues regarding extending the acts to LGBT communities and coverage for illegal immigrants as well as constutional arguments regarding federal versus tribal law and chose not to support renewal of the VAWA..
 
2013-02-12 08:37:48 PM  

ArkAngel: Lionel Mandrake: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.

It's a serious issue, despite the Republicans' stonewalling. Tribal courts are not required to enforce constitutional rights.


Citation needed.
 
2013-02-12 08:38:47 PM  
So what were their reasons for not voting for this act? I'm sure it's something stupid but it would still be nice to know. It's also nice to know that apparently the people of those states don't support the act because those fark wits voted these guys in.
 
2013-02-12 08:39:31 PM  

TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?


What makes you think they are allowed to vote?
 
2013-02-12 08:41:54 PM  

davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.


Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands
 
2013-02-12 08:43:23 PM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


But they're not bigots! See, there's a black guy in there!
 
2013-02-12 08:48:39 PM  

spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands


It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.
 
2013-02-12 08:52:27 PM  

spongeboob: Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands


Except it's not.  You're still an American on American soil when you're on a reservation, and you're not subject to the Native American courts for other matters.  With the right protections I don't have a problem with this provision, but it makes a lot more sense than most of the herping above how the Republicans only voted no because they hate women.
 
2013-02-12 08:52:36 PM  

meat0918: Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?


Tea Party bonafides. Being Hispanic, he doesn't have any wiggle room to do anything that might jeopardise his chances with the base.

Roman Fyseek: During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations.


Even though this doesn't affect me, it does affect my SO and several of our friends, so: Wait, really? Well, it's about bloody time!
 
2013-02-12 08:53:18 PM  

spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands


Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.
 
2013-02-12 09:01:30 PM  

ArkAngel: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.


Hey this is Fark. Let's be honest, none of our Canadian girlfriends actually exist.
 
2013-02-12 09:02:24 PM  

Huggermugger: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's nice to know that one of my Senators, Barbara Mikulski, could beat all their asses to a pulp.


Hells yeah.
She's like a slightly taller Yoda.
 
2013-02-12 09:02:28 PM  

ArkAngel: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.


Read it one more time, it will give the Tribal government the right to try you for comitting crimes on Tribal Land, if you comitte a crime in NY state NY state tries you don't get to be tried in your home state. I don't see where it states that the Tribal Government can try you for crimes not on Tribal Lands.
 
2013-02-12 09:03:44 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy!  Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

Here's one now!  It's almost as if this guy has no fkn idea what VAWA is, but gosh-dern, he's agin' it!


img267.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-12 09:05:38 PM  

Steve Zodiac: 22 Patriotic Christians.


Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it.  If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it.  Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial.  How about informing yourself just once in your life instead of resorting to talking points?
 
2013-02-12 09:08:40 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy!  Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

Here's one now!  It's almost as if this guy has no fkn idea what VAWA is, but gosh-dern, he's agin' it!

[img267.imageshack.us image 638x509]


That perfectly sums up the Republican platform.

Complicated, they are not.
 
2013-02-12 09:09:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.


Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at.  Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women.  In fact, both are assault.  Yet liberals only want to protect the weak women who can't take care of themselves.
 
2013-02-12 09:10:03 PM  
I'm sure the House will attach some sort of sammich amendment.
 
2013-02-12 09:11:34 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at.  Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women.  In fact, both are assault.  Yet liberals only want to protect the weak women who can't take care of themselves.


Hey look!

Someone who didn't read the bill!
 
2013-02-12 09:11:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.


Democrats agree.  That is why the bill supports both genders.
 
2013-02-12 09:12:24 PM  

clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.


No it is not, it is more like crossing a border so you don't get tried. See my linked article above or the other one about the lack of criminal prosecutions for crimes against women on Reservations
 
2013-02-12 09:13:28 PM  

gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree.  That is why the bill supports both genders.


It even covers gay people, whom Democrats believe are human beings.
 
2013-02-12 09:13:51 PM  

meat0918: Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?


Before you can run in the general election you have to win the GOP Primary by winning the hearts and minds of hateful bigoted old white men.   You also can't ever vote for anything that President Obama supports, as that is an automatic instant disqualification.
 
2013-02-12 09:15:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Gyrfalcon: You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.

Know what else is underfunded, by a lot more than this, and will benefit humanity in general more than basically anything we can do on this planet?  NASA.  Close second: the NSA.  But at some point I can accept that we have limited money and have to decide where to spend it, and the people that disagree with me aren't secretly Hitler and probably have a perspective as valid as my own.

Basically, you're in a democracy, deal with it and stop being a jackass.

//Also, your sentence-parsing skills could use some work since you even bolded the sentence but got my position exactly the opposite of correct despite it being right there in front of you.


And YOU should know by now I use "you" in both the singular and plural  forms and wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically.

Basically, you're on Fark, deal with it and stop being so goddamn thin-skinned.
 
2013-02-12 09:15:45 PM  

MyRandomName: Steve Zodiac: 22 Patriotic Christians.

Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it.  If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it.  Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial.  How about informing yourself just once in your life instead of resorting to talking points?



But does that mean there's more to the Violence Against Children and Puppies Act (VACPA) than the title suggests? Say it isn't so????!


Maybe stuff like this:

During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.
 
2013-02-12 09:16:11 PM  

gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree.  That is why the bill supports both genders.


BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.
 
2013-02-12 09:16:21 PM  
It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Embassys are not soverign soil, I don't care how many times you've seen that Simpsons episode.
 
2013-02-12 09:17:15 PM  
AkaDad:

Their faces make want to commit violence.

Jesus H. Christ - WTF is that in the lower left corner?!?
 
2013-02-12 09:17:26 PM  

MyRandomName: Not surprising that liberals still have no clue that legislation is more than just the title legislators give it. If it was a straight vote, they all said they would have passed it. Democrats added new riders to the bill making it controversial.


Such as ... treating gay people as human beings?

It's amazing how it hasn't sunk into Derpers that just because you don't like it  doesn't make it "controversial" when you're part of a lunatic fringe way out of the mainstream American opinion.
 
2013-02-12 09:17:48 PM  

ramblinwreck: gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree.  That is why the bill supports both genders.

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.


Ugh, of course I mean "22 senators are in favor of violence perpetrated on WOMEN."
 
2013-02-12 09:18:45 PM  

davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.


FTFA: During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.

So it's really more like letting the Canadians charge you for beating up your girlfriend in Canada, even though you're a US citizen.  So again, why would anyone have a problem with this?  Isn't it a staple of modern law that you're tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred?
 
2013-02-12 09:21:57 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: gadian: MyRandomName: Anytime a bill is passed that adds extra protections to various favored groups, the bill should be looked at. Violence against men is just as bad as violence against women. In fact, both are assault.

Democrats agree.  That is why the bill supports both genders.

It even covers gay people, whom Democrats believe are human beings.


Be fair, many Republicans believe gays are people they just want them to stay quiet.  If gays want to vote Republican that is okay.
 
2013-02-12 09:23:45 PM  
I see there are 22 Senators that still beat their wives.
 
2013-02-12 09:25:17 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Raharu: I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.

No one knows.  Liberals are always on the right side, and after a generation or so, conservatives tell themselves that they were, too.  Did you know that MLK and Rosa Parks were big defenders of the 2nd Amendment?


Always? Even the gun control debate?
 
2013-02-12 09:26:12 PM  

ramblinwreck: BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.


It's "Trolltastic" to say that "The Violence Against Women Act has something to do with violence against women"?

ಠ_ಠ
 
2013-02-12 09:29:14 PM  
It is literally unbelievable to be that at this point, fark "posters" still don't realize that the bill covers both genders
 
2013-02-12 09:29:43 PM  

Jackson Herring: No, submitter, the VAWA also protects male victims of domestic violence.


I prefer to be protected against Gewalttätigkeit.

You probably haven't heard of it, it's imported.
 
2013-02-12 09:36:50 PM  
I suppose I have to actually give some credit to the 20-some GOP folks who had sense enough to not oppose something that really had nothing worth opposing.
 
2013-02-12 09:38:53 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In the interest of fairness, here's a list of Democrat Senators who voted Nay:


Look at that! I guess both sides are bad.
 
2013-02-12 09:42:44 PM  

ManRay: I see there are 22 Senators that still beat their wives.


Maybe they don't beat their wives but just want to keep their options open.


/spongeboob responding to manray ha.
 
2013-02-12 09:47:53 PM  

TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?


Whatever a man tells them to, or else.
 
2013-02-12 09:48:31 PM  

wxboy: Marco Rubio (R-FL)


You know, if you're serious about a presidential run, you might want to keep in mind that women account for slightly more than half of the voting population. You might also want to account for the fact that most men are good people who don't like the idea of domestic violence.
 
2013-02-12 09:52:02 PM  

Raharu: I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.


Based on the gritted teeth I usually see on these farks, it seems stressful.
 
2013-02-12 10:04:10 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: AkaDad:

Their faces make want to commit violence.

Jesus H. Christ - WTF is that in the lower left corner?!?


This is what happens when too many generations marry their first cousins.
 
2013-02-12 10:06:46 PM  

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: AkaDad:

Their faces make want to commit violence.

Jesus H. Christ - WTF is that in the lower left corner?!?


That's the kind of Blunt I wont smoke.
 
2013-02-12 10:08:30 PM  
So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.
 
2013-02-12 10:11:53 PM  

g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.


Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.
 
2013-02-12 10:12:01 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


22 guys who are screwed if they run for prez.
 
2013-02-12 10:17:13 PM  

Roman Fyseek: During debate, the major divisive issue was a provision that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians accused of assaulting Indian women on reservations. Republicans, arguing that subjecting non-Indians to Indian courts was unconstitutional, offered two amendments to strip that section from the bill, but both were defeated.


Ironic.
 
2013-02-12 10:18:31 PM  

spongeboob: ArkAngel: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

It's more along the lines of allowing Canada to charge you for beating up your Canadian girlfriend while at the American embassy in Ottawa. While it's geographically in Canada, it is legally a separate nation.

Read it one more time, it will give the Tribal government the right to try you for comitting crimes on Tribal Land, if you comitte a crime in NY state NY state tries you don't get to be tried in your home state. I don't see where it states that the Tribal Government can try you for crimes not on Tribal Lands.


Embassies in foreign nations (i.e. Canada) are officially the sovereign soil of their home nation. That's about as close as you can get to this situation
 
2013-02-12 10:19:16 PM  

Weaver95: GAT_00: That's OK, there's plenty more in the GOP House that won't pass it.

that'd do wonders for their re-election chances.


...they gerrymandered out all the women from their districts. They don't care about them anymore.
 
2013-02-12 10:22:20 PM  

g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.


So, you want to ignore that that '100 member body' is the current US Senate that is perhaps the most ideologically divided as it has been in the past 150 years? Yea, if you want to ignore that... and I suppose that 78% of the vote is almost universally accepted as a 'landslide', then yea, I suppose you have a point. I guess. Sort of.

/not really
 
2013-02-12 10:22:30 PM  

Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.


Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?
 
2013-02-12 10:22:58 PM  

Jackson Herring: It is literally unbelievable to be that at this point, fark "posters" still don't realize that the bill covers both genders


Bad name for the bill. It's what I thought of at first until I noticed that it now covers gay partnerships as well.
 
2013-02-12 10:23:08 PM  

clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.


What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?
 
2013-02-12 10:27:52 PM  

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?


So... no?
 
2013-02-12 10:27:54 PM  

Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.


What ever number my side got sounds about right
 
2013-02-12 10:29:39 PM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


The guy in the lower left corner... WTF? Is he the Joker?
 
2013-02-12 10:30:15 PM  

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


The first one to send out a psychologist... there is a good chance you were punching a sock puppet.

/If you had sex first you could say it was American beer...
//farking close to water
 
2013-02-12 10:30:20 PM  

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?


He asked for a definition of landslide, as used in an election, and you reply with some nonsense about it being 'well-defined' without referencing what that definition might be? I mean, you didn't even bother to make up an un-cited definition that helps your 'point'?  Wow, that's some weak-ass shiat. It's also some weak ass-shiat.
 
2013-02-12 10:30:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

So, you want to ignore that that '100 member body' is the current US Senate that is perhaps the most ideologically divided as it has been in the past 150 years? Yea, if you want to ignore that... and I suppose that 78% of the vote is almost universally accepted as a 'landslide', then yea, I suppose you have a point. I guess. Sort of.

/not really


So you're using contemporary usage?  You mean like the 49% of the popular vote being a "landslide" for GWB in '04?  Common misusage is still misusage.  And all the wishful thinking in the world won't make a landslide out of a party line vote with a few aisle crossers.
 
2013-02-12 10:31:50 PM  

LoneWolf343: Bad name for the bill. It's what I thought of at first until I noticed that it now covers gay partnerships as well.


it covers all victims of domestic abuse no matter what gender or orientation
 
2013-02-12 10:32:18 PM  
Now women are going to start shooting cops and hiding in burning cabins.
DAMN YOU CONGRESS
 
2013-02-12 10:32:20 PM  
Only traitors and terrorists oppose the PATRIOT Act.
 
2013-02-12 10:32:36 PM  

Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?


So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"
 
2013-02-12 10:35:03 PM  

cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.


Your 2004 self just called. He says only liberals and terrorist appeasers say that. You RINO.
 
2013-02-12 10:36:15 PM  

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"


OK

Landslide, n.: A victory achieved by winning 75% or more in a vote.

BOOM! MUTHAfrkkIN LANDSLIDE BIATCH!!
 
2013-02-12 10:37:21 PM  

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


I would guess who ever registered your canoe or more likely whoever caught you first Ships sailing the high seas are generally under the jurisdiction of the flag state;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters#cite_note-2" >[2] (if there is one) however, when a ship is involved in certain criminal acts, such as piracy,http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/International_waters#cite_note-3">[3] any nation can exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction
 
2013-02-12 10:37:53 PM  

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


We bury you on the border
 
2013-02-12 10:40:42 PM  

LoneWolf343: Bad name for the bill. It's what I thought of at first until I noticed that it now covers gay partnerships as well.


Yeah, it really should be renamed to the "Domestic Violence Act" or something like that, if only to shut up the Republicans pretending that they don't realise it's not gender specific.
 
2013-02-12 10:42:40 PM  

jestme: timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.

Don't ignore the fact that Mark Kirk (D-IL) didn't vote.

/sorry if he's sick again


Two things are wrong in your statement.  Mark Kirk did vote (happened be Yea), and he is a Republican.    Of course I knew that he voted considering the vote was 78 to 22, which conveniently adds up to 100:  the current number of US Senators.
 
2013-02-12 10:46:36 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In the interest of fairness, here's a list of Democrat Senators who voted Nay:


And building off that, here's a list of female Senators who voted Nay:

jestme: Don't ignore the fact that Mark Kirk (D-IL) didn't vote.

/sorry if he's sick again


Mark Kirk is a Republican. He also supports reauthorizing VAWA. Representing Illinois, he'd be crazy not to.
 
2013-02-12 10:47:57 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

It's "Trolltastic" to say that "The Violence Against Women Act has something to do with violence against women"?

ಠ_ಠ


See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.
 
2013-02-12 10:48:09 PM  
For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?
 
2013-02-12 10:50:12 PM  
Still waiting for a citation showing that Tribal Courts would be unconstitutional, and that they wouldn't have constitutional safe guards.
 
2013-02-12 10:51:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"

OK

Landslide, n.: A victory achieved by winning 75% or more in a vote.

BOOM!  MUTHAfrkkIN LANDSLIDE BIATCH!!


www.reelseo.com

Some days, it's just too easy.

cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2013-02-12 10:51:42 PM  

GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?


I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?
 
2013-02-12 10:53:57 PM  

ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?


it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know
 
2013-02-12 10:55:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Jim_Callahan: Well, in all fairness it's primarily a spending bill funding services.  So this is pretty consistent with someone against spending on social support networks.

The actual parts of the bill with legal force (allowing you to sue in federal court over sexual assault/harassment even if the state found insufficient evidence or acquitted on the criminal case) was removed by a high court ruling (iirc it went all the way to the Supremes, but not 100% sure on that one) due to jurisdictional and double-jeopardy concerns.   All that left was the funding for domestic violence education, officer training, and shelters, which I would argue are a worthwhile investment but would willingly put in the "reasonable people can disagree" category since it's not all _that_ much money and most funding is still local.

//Naming your bill the "we love fluffy bunnies and giving puppies to lonely orphans act of 2013" or whatever is an old, old trick and the name doesn't necessarily reflect the actual effect of a given bill.  See also PATRIOT.

You might say that...if you didn't know how desperately underfunded these things are. In L.A. County, for instance, we've got about a hundred shelter beds, and literally tens of thousands of women who need them every night. Any dime we can get is better than none. If you can "reasonably disagree" that it's not needed...well, son, you're as much an asshole as the guys who voted Nay.



you hear that callahan!?!?!
you are evil callahan, pure stinking evil, for prohibiting L.A. county, and the state of california, and the city of L.A. from raising their taxes to fund domestic violence shelters.


Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy! Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!


yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.
 
2013-02-12 10:57:13 PM  

Jackson Herring: it is

important to find some fault with liberals here, I know OK when my side does it.

ftfy
 
2013-02-12 10:58:10 PM  
It's not as simple as saying that the bill does or doesn't "cover men". VAWA is a bill that provides funding for a huge number of programs and institutions, some of which are gender-neutral in their approach and some of which are not.
 
2013-02-12 10:59:01 PM  

Skyrmion: VAWA is a bill that provides funding for a huge number of programs and institutions, some of which are gender-neutral in their approach and some of which are not.


But if you don't vote for it, it means you are OK with violence against women.
 
2013-02-12 11:01:05 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?

it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know


For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.
 
2013-02-12 11:02:08 PM  

ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?


they get to schedule a war on women press conference again in 10 years?
 
2013-02-12 11:02:16 PM  
"Tax cuts"

/damn phone
 
2013-02-12 11:02:49 PM  
Why would the Senate wish to promote violence against women?
 
2013-02-12 11:03:35 PM  

Oerath: Fark you Orrin! And you Mike! God I hate my farking stupid ass state!


Nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there.
 
2013-02-12 11:05:17 PM  
► ramblinwreck Smartest Funniest
2013-02-12 09:16:11 PM

gadian: MyRandomName:

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.


Nah, by your response, I'm sure subby accomplished exactly what he / she set out to do. Which is to rile up semantic idiots like you. Win for subby. Also, it's just an easy headline to get out of the title. I can't hate subby for grabbing an easy one.
 
2013-02-12 11:05:31 PM  

ramblinwreck: See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.


I'm not subby, but it's pretty obvious that it was simplified for the flow of the joke; if it was renamed to the Domestic Violence Act, it would have ended as "Still in favour of domestic violence." That's not trolling. If you want to see a real trolling headline, scroll down a few threads to the one about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

ramblinwreck: For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.


He was talking about GoldSpider. You're just oversensitive, aren't you?
 
2013-02-12 11:06:02 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: GoldSpider: For what intellectually honest reason would a bill that protects all people from domestic violence be called the "Violence Against Women Act"?

I asked the same thing. Seems like a simple fix for a reauthorization bill. Sure, reauthorize but change the damn name. Also, someone else mentioned why would you put a sunset clause on this type of bill?

it is important to find some fault with liberals here, I know


upload.wikimedia.org

Would beg to differ on your characterization.  The "liberal" sponsors of the VAWA come and go, but Crapo's been a sponsor every time it's come up for a vote
 
2013-02-12 11:07:31 PM  

gadian: ► ramblinwreck Smartest Funniest
2013-02-12 09:16:11 PM

gadian: MyRandomName:

BUT, as I pointed out...the subby fails because the trolltastic Fark headline says the 22 senators are in favor against violence perpetrated on WOMEN.

Nah, by your response, I'm sure subby accomplished exactly what he / she set out to do. Which is to rile up semantic idiots like you. Win for subby. Also, it's just an easy headline to get out of the title. I can't hate subby for grabbing an easy one.


That's exactly what reading and understanding law is about...semantics. Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.
 
2013-02-12 11:10:46 PM  
One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?
 
2013-02-12 11:12:49 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: See the post below yours. Subby is illiterate or a troll. The bill doesn't cover only women, despite the title of the bill.

I'm not subby, but it's pretty obvious that it was simplified for the flow of the joke; if it was renamed to the Domestic Violence Act, it would have ended as "Still in favour of domestic violence." That's not trolling. If you want to see a real trolling headline, scroll down a few threads to the one about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

ramblinwreck: For fark sake, I'm about as left of center as they come. If I'm going to call out the Bush rax cuts for being temporary because of political timing and use as leverage and naming some BS like the PATRIOT Act as "name only" patriotism, I'm going to call it out on "my side" as well because the bumper sticker politics do us all a disservice.

He was talking about GoldSpider. You're just oversensitive, aren't you?


And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).
 
2013-02-12 11:14:56 PM  

ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.


weird, when the fark did I claim that
 
2013-02-12 11:15:31 PM  

g4lt: Would beg to differ on your characterization.  The "liberal" sponsors of the VAWA come and go, but Crapo's been a sponsor every time it's come up for a vote


which liberals voted against the bill?
 
2013-02-12 11:17:05 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.

weird, when the fark did I claim that


You didn't.
 
2013-02-12 11:18:01 PM  

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Let me repost my linkhttp://americas wire.org/drupal7/?q=content/law-enforcement-gaps-leave- native-women-vulnerable-rape-and-domestic-violence-1

and here is Johnny_Vegas link 'http://thehill.com/blogs/cong ress-blog/civil-rights/226743-vawa-tribal -provisions-are-constitutionally-soundThe epidemic of violence against women on tribal lands is staggering; 34% of American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in their lifetimes, 39% will experience domestic violence, and as a Department of Justice study found, non-Indians commit 88% of these heinous crimes. Tribal justice systems are the most appropriate entities to root out these criminals, yet they are the ones with tied hands-restricted by antiquated jurisdictional laws established the U.S. government limiting tribes from prosecuting non-Native criminals.
 
2013-02-12 11:21:48 PM  

ramblinwreck: Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Don't claim X only applies, when X AND Y does.

weird, when the fark did I claim that

You didn't.


Unless you're the subby...who either through ignorance or deliberate (and effective) means, misidentified a vote against the bill was only a vote against protecting female victims of domestic abuse.
 
2013-02-12 11:22:01 PM  

ramblinwreck: And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).


I'm a woman, dumbass.
 
2013-02-12 11:23:36 PM  

ramblinwreck: Unless you're the subby...who either through ignorance or deliberate (and effective) means, misidentified a vote against the bill was only a vote against protecting female victims of domestic abuse.


have you read a single farking post I have ever made about this topic, including the literally dozens I have made today and in this thread speficifally

I mean I know you haven't, it is a rhetorical question
 
2013-02-12 11:24:10 PM  

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Only if the tribe was a TERO tribe.  Since tribes are sovereign, if they don't want to follow state and local laws, they don't have to.  It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem in actual life though, as most tribes have a form of TERO on the books, and those that don't tend to have rather explicit laws forbidding rape, murder, and mayhem on tribal lands.
 
2013-02-12 11:24:23 PM  

relcec: Lionel Mandrake: Oh boy! Another thread where the bootstrappy, rugged "conservatives" biatch and moan about how there are no special laws to assist men who get beat up by women!!

yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.


Yes, idiots one and all for thinking men aren't protected by the same laws.  You know, Equal Protection Clause.
 
2013-02-12 11:27:32 PM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
<b>John Cornyn (R-TX)</b>
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)



The legislation includes a provision, backed by a bipartisan group headed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would speed up the analysis of DNA evidence in rape cases.

At least he got to vote against his own rider
 
2013-02-12 11:27:33 PM  
yes, pussies one and all for asking for equal protection of the law for EVERYONE, you know, justice.

relcec still lying about VAWA, sky still blue
 
2013-02-12 11:28:45 PM  

serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?


Reservations currently cannot prosecute non-native americans for crimes on indian reservations, unless congress delegates such powers to them - which this bill tries to do.  Those crimes fall under federal jurisdiction.  Which means that when those crimes go to court, they have to go to a federal court, which out west where a lot of reservations are, might be a few hours drive away.

What this means is that when a federal prosecutor takes a look at cases he can prosecute, he can pick from a couple murders, maybe some drugs dealing, maybe a nice organize crime case - or he can spend the time and money to ship in witnesses for a case of some asshole beating his girlfriend.  Understandably this particular category of crime usually falls through the cracks due to simple triage.

As to the 'concerns' that allowing tribes to prosecute non-Indians being unconstitutional - that case has already been settled in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe , where the Supreme Court said that it's legal as long as congress has told them it's OK to do so.
 
2013-02-12 11:31:20 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ramblinwreck: And it seems like you're well versed on textbook feminist shaming tactics. This one would be "Charge of Hypersensitivity" (aka the crybaby charge).

I'm a woman, dumbass.


Uhhh yup. Your point? You used a "textbook" shaming tactic used by feminists. Does that help?
 
2013-02-12 11:31:53 PM  

g4lt: serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?

Only if the tribe was a TERO tribe.  Since tribes are sovereign, if they don't want to follow state and local laws, they don't have to.  It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem in actual life though, as most tribes have a form of TERO on the books, and those that don't tend to have rather explicit laws forbidding rape, murder, and mayhem on tribal lands.


What does Tribal Equal rights office(What is the purpose of the TERO program?

The primary purpose of the TERO program is to enforce tribally enacted Indian Preference law to insure that Indian/Alaska Native people gain their rightful share to employment, training, contracting, subcontracting, and business opportunities on and near reservations and native villages.http://ctertero.org/faq.html#question"> have to do with this.
 
2013-02-12 11:32:04 PM  

ramblinwreck: You used a "textbook" shaming tactic used by feminists


but what about MEN's rights a bloo blah bloo
 
2013-02-12 11:34:06 PM  

Jackson Herring: have you read a single farking post I have ever made about this topic, including the literally dozens I have made today and in this thread speficifally


I'm thinking that this one is some sort of bizarre reverse-troll. Either that, or we've found living proof that some Democrats really are just as reactionary and stupid as Republicans are.
 
2013-02-12 11:35:07 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Unless you're the subby...who either through ignorance or deliberate (and effective) means, misidentified a vote against the bill was only a vote against protecting female victims of domestic abuse.

have you read a single farking post I have ever made about this topic, including the literally dozens I have made today and in this thread speficifally

I mean I know you haven't, it is a rhetorical question


You like to write that a lot in your posts, as if what you say is ignored. (And that everyone should read what you have to say because it's REALLY important)

Bottom line: my point on semantics wasn't even addressing you.
 
2013-02-12 11:38:45 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: You used a "textbook" shaming tactic used by feminists

but what about MEN's rights a bloo blah bloo


Oh wait, so we do have the truth now. You couldn't give a crap about the bill protecting ALL victims?
 
2013-02-12 11:41:45 PM  

Karac: serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?

Reservations currently cannot prosecute non-native americans for crimes on indian reservations, unless congress delegates such powers to them - which this bill tries to do.  Those crimes fall under federal jurisdiction.  Which means that when those crimes go to court, they have to go to a federal court, which out west where a lot of reservations are, might be a few hours drive away.

What this means is that when a federal prosecutor takes a look at cases he can prosecute, he can pick from a couple murders, maybe some drugs dealing, maybe a nice organize crime case - or he can spend the time and money to ship in witnesses for a case of some asshole beating his girlfriend.  Understandably this particular category of crime usually falls through the cracks due to simple triage.

As to the 'concerns' that allowing tribes to prosecute non-Indians being unconstitutional - that case has already been settled in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe , where the Supreme Court said that it's legal as long as congress has told them it's OK to do so.


Ah, that makes sense. Well, as much sense as anything in our legal system makes.
I guess the big problem is escalating straight to the federal level, skipping counties and states (since usually they'd be the ones prosecuting this sort of thing, not the Feds).

So ensuring proper justice either means spending federal money building federal court near the reservation, or letting the tribes do their own thing. I guess in that sense the small government republicans should really have been for it...

Ideally the tribes should just get over themselves and disband and let us treat them like everybody else (well, keep the casinos legal...)
 
2013-02-12 11:49:33 PM  

ramblinwreck: Oh wait, so we do have the truth now. You couldn't give a crap about the bill protecting ALL victims?


are you serious at this point or are you just ignoring reality to show how concerned you are
 
2013-02-12 11:50:28 PM  

ramblinwreck: You like to write that a lot in your posts


ok yeah you are just making stuff up at this point
 
2013-02-12 11:52:45 PM  

serial_crusher: So ensuring proper justice either means spending federal money building federal court near the reservation, or letting the tribes do their own thing. I guess in that sense the small government republicans should really have been for it...



Even if there is a Federal Court House you would need the prosecutor would have to prosecute According to government data US attorneys decline about 67% of sexual assault  cases from Indian Country, just having the court house closer wouldn't ensure that the cases would be tried,a zero tolerance policy would be better.
 
2013-02-12 11:54:29 PM  

serial_crusher: clowncar on fire: spongeboob: davidphogan: Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations.

I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.

They're not US courts.  It's more like letting the Canadians charge you with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend outside of Canada.

Are you sure it is not like allowing Canadians to charge with a crime for beating up your Canadian girlfriend in Canada, because Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands

Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.

What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?


Depends. Do you want to go to prison in America, or do you want the the Zeta cartel to ship your headless body back to your parents?
 
2013-02-12 11:56:07 PM  
Maybe we should pass a VAMA just to get all these uninformed jackasses to STFU

Would that make you feel better, you poor oppressed men?
 
2013-02-12 11:56:46 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Maybe we should pass a VAMA just to get all these uninformed jackasses to STFU

Would that make you feel better, you poor oppressed men?


Violence Against White Middle Class Totally Oppressed Men and Men Only Act
 
2013-02-12 11:57:51 PM  

spongeboob: g4lt: serial_crusher: One thing I'm failing to get here... Supporters of this act like tribal women weren't getting any justice, like there was just nobody who could prosecute a guy in cases like this.
But, couldn't the actual State that the reservation was in do the prosecuting? Or was there anything actually preventing that? Surely you couldn't just wander around and rape people with impunity on reservations... Could you?

Only if the tribe was a TERO tribe.  Since tribes are sovereign, if they don't want to follow state and local laws, they don't have to.  It's a nonsolution to a nonproblem in actual life though, as most tribes have a form of TERO on the books, and those that don't tend to have rather explicit laws forbidding rape, murder, and mayhem on tribal lands.

What does Tribal Equal rights office(What is the purpose of the TERO program?

The primary purpose of the TERO program is to enforce tribally enacted Indian Preference law to insure that Indian/Alaska Native people gain their rightful share to employment, training, contracting, subcontracting, and business opportunities on and near reservations and native villages.http://ctertero.org/faq.html#question"> have to do with this.


MUCH older definition of TERO, Tribal Enforcement of Regional Ordinances.  Apparently, some idiot bureaucrat in the eighties or nineties decided to overload the acronym and the new definition's taken over.  Because, you know, whether or nor a person is employed is a MUCH higher priority than whether they can get murdered... :(
 
2013-02-12 11:57:57 PM  
Violence Against Jort Owners Act
 
2013-02-12 11:58:17 PM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: You like to write that a lot in your posts

ok yeah you are just making stuff up at this point


Now you're just lying to yourself.

Do a quick review of your posts over the past couple of days and see how many times you've asked if people have read what you've said.
 
2013-02-13 12:01:27 AM  

ramblinwreck: Do a quick review of your posts over the past couple of days and see how many times you've asked if people have read what you've said.


hey did you read all the times I pointed out that VAWA covers male victims of domestic violence
 
2013-02-13 12:01:41 AM  
I feel the need to add to one of my earlier posts.

Fluorescent Testicle: Yeah, it really should be renamed to the "Domestic Violence Act" or something like that, if only to shut up the Republicans

and other MEN'S RIGHTS!!! types pretending that they don't realise it's not gender specific.

/FTFM.
//But seriously, it does need to be renamed.
 
2013-02-13 12:02:08 AM  
I mean just because I acknowledge objective, observable reality doesn't mean I don't reserve the right to ridicule reddit men's rights advocates, quite the contrary in fact
 
2013-02-13 12:03:04 AM  

Jackson Herring: Lionel Mandrake: Maybe we should pass a VAMA just to get all these uninformed jackasses to STFU

Would that make you feel better, you poor oppressed men?

Violence Against White Middle Class Totally Oppressed Men and Men Only Act


FYI: this is how you turn people on your side against you. Make the debate so toxic and dishonest that even people that agree with your ideas are so turned off by the cynicism and ad hominem attacks.
 
2013-02-13 12:05:39 AM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Do a quick review of your posts over the past couple of days and see how many times you've asked if people have read what you've said.

hey did you read all the times I pointed out that VAWA covers male victims of domestic violence


Uh, yep. I don't understand the disconnect, because I was saying the same thing.
 
2013-02-13 12:11:35 AM  

ramblinwreck: Make the debate so toxic and dishonest that even people that agree with your ideas are so turned off by the cynicism and ad hominem attacks.


this coming from an MRA who is literally crying IRL about feminism
 
2013-02-13 12:12:44 AM  

ramblinwreck: Uh, yep. I don't understand the disconnect, because I was saying the same thing.


wow really then what the fark is this shiatty post about then

ramblinwreck: You couldn't give a crap about the bill protecting ALL victims?

 
2013-02-13 12:22:20 AM  

Jackson Herring: ramblinwreck: Make the debate so toxic and dishonest that even people that agree with your ideas are so turned off by the cynicism and ad hominem attacks.

this coming from an MRA who is literally crying IRL about feminism


*Sigh* Another "Charge of Hypersensitivity"...

Look, this is my last post for the evening. We all have different viewpoints based on gender, race, life experiences, etc. We all have different ideas of what is fair and just. No one deserves to be abused. Everyone deserves support to escape abuse. If you can't see that we all need that, then I don't know what to tell you.

I wish something like this act existed when my father was sexually assaulted and abused growing up. This is farking real, OK?
 
2013-02-13 12:27:50 AM  
 
2013-02-13 12:28:15 AM  

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.


Now it's MORE illegal to hit women.
 
2013-02-13 12:28:17 AM  

g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"


Weak sauce, junior. You know what's NOT a landslide, but are unable to tell us what IS a landslide. Also, why did you use quotation marks in your reply without providing the name of the person you're quoting? That's just poor grammar, son.
 
2013-02-13 12:29:23 AM  
In other news, there are many Republican Senators who are in favor of getting more than twelve women to vote for them in the next go-round
 
2013-02-13 12:29:40 AM  
Um, it's almost like none of you read the article. I only made it thru 10 or so posts but nobody seems to understand why people voted against it. You all just want an excuse to say that repubs hate women, it's absurd. Read the article before you post if you don't want to look retarded.
 
2013-02-13 12:43:38 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with- t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/


Interesting link. I have to say, FIRE is quickly becoming one of my favorite political organizations. Unlearning Liberty was a good read.
 
2013-02-13 12:50:46 AM  

Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: Craptastic: g4lt: So nobody else wants to point out that "22 nays in a 100 member body" is NOT passing by a landslide?  Fine, let me.

Is there a specific definition of "landslide" where it applies to a voting body? I've been unable to find one.

Why would using a well, defined, term in a counterintuitive manner be any more useful than using a well-defined term wrongly?

So... no?

So "if you want something defined, try doing it your damn self"

Weak sauce, junior. You know what's NOT a landslide, but are unable to tell us what IS a landslide. Also, why did you use quotation marks in your reply without providing the name of the person you're quoting? That's just poor grammar, son.


Worked for Potter Stewart...
 
2013-02-13 12:57:17 AM  

giftedmadness: Um, it's almost like none of you read the article. I only made it thru 10 or so posts but nobody seems to understand why people voted against it. You all just want an excuse to say that repubs hate women, it's absurd. Read the article before you post if you don't want to look retarded.


Maybe you should make it through more than ten posts if you don't want to look like an idiot..

But, having read less than 5% of the thread, you felt sufficiently familiar with its content to accuse people of being retarded.  Having read less than 5% of the thread, you felt comfortable in declaring that "nobody seems to understand why people voted against it."

And, then you came in here to confidently declare that you have figured out not only the entirity of what was being said in the thread, but the motivations behind why it was said.  All this after reading less than 5% of the posts.

Amazing.
 
2013-02-13 01:01:34 AM  

TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?


They don't.
 
2013-02-13 01:12:17 AM  
Well, this thread left me sad.  Good to learn how many folks are opposed to defending abused women, regardless of context.
 
2013-02-13 01:13:09 AM  

The Name: TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?

They don't.


They do, and  they will vote.  It's a matter of time.
 
2013-02-13 01:33:39 AM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


Their faces are weirding me out like in that distorted from a fisheye lens way. WTF is up with some of those faces.
 
2013-02-13 01:41:17 AM  
Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women

And apparently 100 Senators who don't give a shiat about violence against men.
 
2013-02-13 02:12:44 AM  

cretinbob: TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?

What makes you think they are allowed to vote?


Maybe they shouldn't.  If they're going to be feeble spineless little coonts, maybe the Democrats should tell them to close their goddamn cumholes until they grow some self respect and a f*cking brain.

KHITBASH = tough love?
 
2013-02-13 02:24:02 AM  
This is a bill designed specifically to combat domestic violence and make all people safer but especially the people who have historically had a hard time getting a fair shake within the legal system or even access.

Trolls playing the semantic game pretending they don't know this are obvious morons.

See also: The 22 GOP Senators who voted against this.

/Will the House even vote on this?
//Can they just ignore it?
///Or will they vote on it and fail to pass it?
 
2013-02-13 03:08:07 AM  

revelcoot: Princess Ryans Knickers: Good! Men are pigs anyway

Not just men, if I'm reading this correctly:

"Over 160 million women across the country are watching and waiting to see if the House will act on this bill and finally provide them the protections from violence they deserve," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.


Who are these 160 million women deserving of violence?
 
2013-02-13 03:45:51 AM  
Oh look it's the "Don't kick a puppy bill". How can you not vote for that?

I do have some objections to the bill regarding due process. I don't give a damn about your anecdotes. I've been on the other side of a violent abusive relationship and I know that the first thing my former spouse did was flip everything upside down by accusing me of the exact same things she was doing. It's interesting how the ACLU had objections to the original bill in 1994 but by 2005 had flipped. I wonder why?
 
2013-02-13 03:50:25 AM  
As for the person went on about the men being larger than women. Have you ever had to wrestle a knife away from a woman who was trying to stab you? Have you ever been knocked out with a beer bottle? Good times good times.
 
2013-02-13 03:59:25 AM  

Karac: What's the objection to saying that crimes committed on Indian reservations can be prosecuted by courts on Indian reservations. I don't see anyone claiming that you can't be arrested for beating up your girlfriend in D.C. if you actually live in Boston.


I know that tribal punishments sometimes differ from 'recognized' state punishment (jail, prison, community service, etc.).

In 1994 two native Americans from Alaska were sentenced to banishment to isolated islands with only hand tools and very little food. Their crime was small-change urban robbery and the sentence was for one year.

Here's a link:  Do not go to jail . . . go be alone and grow the hell up

Tribal laws vary by tribe . . . and so do the punishments.

 
2013-02-13 04:25:08 AM  

Zunigene: Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Sigh


I've given up hope that Rubio is a decent human being.
 
2013-02-13 04:35:01 AM  

bestie1: As for the person went on about the men being larger than women. Have you ever had to wrestle a knife away from a woman who was trying to stab you? Have you ever been knocked out with a beer bottle? Good times good times.


How on Earth did you manage to read that post while simultaneously missing the fifty others that pointed out this bill is not gender-specific and applies equally to both men and women?

/I'm going to guess "Deliberately."
 
2013-02-13 04:41:05 AM  

johnny_vegas: admittedly a little biased but a good (though superficial) overview of the tribal jurisdiction issue in VAWA....

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/226743-vawa-trib al -provisions-are-constitutionally-sound


Ah, so the reason the Republicans were against this bill is their continued campaign to get rapists to vote for them?
 
Xai
2013-02-13 04:50:45 AM  
so what we have learned is republicans are woman beaters.
 
2013-02-13 04:51:07 AM  

Karac: dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

You would think that.  But sometimes, you'd be wrong.
Such as when Topeka, Kansas repealed it's laws against domestic violence because there were so many cases they couldn't afford to prosecute them.

Want to know why the federal government keeps growing; keeps stepping into local school systems, local law enforcement cases, local matters usually regarded as 'states rights'?  It's because local and state governments keep farking up and someone has to pick up the slack.  Don't blame the plunger because you stopped up the toilet.


Now, that's a line I'm going to have to remember.
 
2013-02-13 05:25:05 AM  
On Monday 17 House Republicans wrote Cantor and Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, urging immediate action. The act's "programs save lies, and we must allow states and communities to build upon the successes of current VAWA programs so that we can help even more people," they wrote.

Won't somebody think of the LIES?
 
2013-02-13 05:25:54 AM  

spongeboob: cman


Al Gore, 1988: abortion is wrong
Al Gore, 1998: abortion is a right

A lot of things can change in a decade
 
2013-02-13 05:28:16 AM  

cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.


i915.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-13 05:30:08 AM  

thamike: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

[i915.photobucket.com image 850x76]


1. I wrote that after it went green, so your statement is invalid
2. Can you elaborate on how my message made me look like an ass? Thank you
 
2013-02-13 05:41:07 AM  

BSABSVR: TheOther: WTF are women in TX, KY, UT, WY, SC, & OK thinking?

Whatever a man tells them to, or else.


.

Also when you're told from about the time you start walking that you were placed here to serve a man, keep a house and keep God's quiver full of "arrows" you might have a skewed view of things.
 
2013-02-13 05:52:39 AM  

cman: thamike: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

[i915.photobucket.com image 850x76]

1. I wrote that after it went green, so your statement is invalid
2. Can you elaborate on how my message made me look like an ass? Thank you


You're asking for citations to support your theory that you look like an ass?
 
2013-02-13 05:54:47 AM  

thamike: cman: thamike: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

[i915.photobucket.com image 850x76]

1. I wrote that after it went green, so your statement is invalid
2. Can you elaborate on how my message made me look like an ass? Thank you

You're asking for citations to support your theory that you look like an ass?


I am asking you to explain why you see what I said as acting like one.
 
2013-02-13 06:04:45 AM  

cman: thamike: cman: thamike: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

[i915.photobucket.com image 850x76]

1. I wrote that after it went green, so your statement is invalid
2. Can you elaborate on how my message made me look like an ass? Thank you

You're asking for citations to support your theory that you look like an ass?

I am asking you to explain why you see what I said as acting like one.


It must be nice to think that anyone owes you a detailed explanation of why, in fact, you are making an ass of yourself.  For the rest of us, this:

Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

in this context, makes you look like an ass.  The fact that you are aware that you often make an ass of yourself should satisfy any doubt you have, anyway.
 
2013-02-13 06:09:40 AM  

thamike: cman: thamike: cman: thamike: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

[i915.photobucket.com image 850x76]

1. I wrote that after it went green, so your statement is invalid
2. Can you elaborate on how my message made me look like an ass? Thank you

You're asking for citations to support your theory that you look like an ass?

I am asking you to explain why you see what I said as acting like one.

It must be nice to think that anyone owes you a detailed explanation of why, in fact, you are making an ass of yourself.  For the rest of us, this:

Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

in this context, makes you look like an ass.  The fact that you are aware that you often make an ass of yourself should satisfy any doubt you have, anyway.


Would have the "You are with us or you are against us" phrase do better? I wanted to give a recent example that is still in everyone's memory to remind them that just because these Congressfolk voted no, that does not mean they support violence against women.
 
Xai
2013-02-13 06:49:25 AM  
I wonder what people who vote for these senators are like?

I bet they all must like beating women.
 
2013-02-13 06:54:17 AM  
meh.. we need to stop passing new laws (and all the pork nonsense that goes along with them) and toughen up existing laws and disallow the pork.

Either a law is good or bad based on what it is about.. it shouldn't have to depend on a bridge to no where in alaska to pass.. or subsidies for the solar industry (for example).

Every new law will cause taxes to go up somewhere.
 
2013-02-13 06:57:01 AM  

47 is the new 42: jest


47 is the new 42: jestme: timujin: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

It's the Who's Who of Senate Assholes.  Damn near every time you hear some Senator being a complete dick, it's one of these guys.

Don't ignore the fact that Mark Kirk (D-IL) didn't vote.

/sorry if he's sick again

Two things are wrong in your statement.  Mark Kirk did vote (happened be Yea), and he is a Republican.    Of course I knew that he voted considering the vote was 78 to 22, which conveniently adds up to 100:  the current number of US Senators.


Odd, that's the same source I looked at and saw he didn't vote; I guess it was too early for accurate results.

Paris1127: Mark Kirk is a Republican. He also supports reauthorizing VAWA. Representing Illinois, he'd be crazy not to.


Yeah, as for why I typed D, I really have no idea. Oops!
 
2013-02-13 07:30:45 AM  
Zerochance

Rubio? Really? Gotta say, I'm surprised about that one.

Really? Did you listen to his response to the SOTU last night? Talk about a creepy voice/inflection/intonation style. I was halfway expecting him to say, "good...good....let your anger flow through you...."
 
2013-02-13 07:43:26 AM  
We should start a kickstarter and send every Senator that voted no one of these:

3.bp.blogspot.com

"We heard you like rape so we got you some. Love, Fark"
 
2013-02-13 07:47:55 AM  

jestme: Paris1127: Mark Kirk is a Republican. He also supports reauthorizing VAWA. Representing Illinois, he'd be crazy not to.

Yeah, as for why I typed D, I really have no idea. Oops!


Maybe you could work for FOX News...
www.bradblog.com
images2.dailykos.com
www.jedreport.com
appealtoauthority.files.wordpress.com

And for a change of pace:
blog.pressan.is
 
2013-02-13 08:01:23 AM  
I'm going to write my representatives and tell them to create legislation that requires a bill's name to be germane to its function, to keep stuff like this from happening again.  The Jobs Inception/Appropriation and Business Building Act, we'll call it.  JIBBA/JABBA for short.
 
2013-02-13 08:24:50 AM  

Jackson Herring: No, submitter, the VAWA also protects male victims of domestic violence.


Vawa exclusively about like violence against women just like the patriot act is exclusively about patriotism.
 
2013-02-13 08:28:58 AM  

potterydove: Jackson Herring: No, submitter, the VAWA also protects male victims of domestic violence.

Vawa exclusively about like violence against women just like the patriot act is exclusively about patriotism.


sort of in the same way the Nazis were socialists
 
2013-02-13 08:56:25 AM  

Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.


He's going for the Hispanic wife-beater vote.
 
2013-02-13 08:58:14 AM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


I sense a pattern here.....
 
2013-02-13 08:59:19 AM  

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


Old, balding white men, a token minority, and a turtle.
 
2013-02-13 09:00:33 AM  

Citrate1007: I sense a pattern here.....


Would that pattern be male pattern baldness?
 
2013-02-13 09:30:12 AM  
I'll say this for my state's senators.  Tom Harkin may be a pseudoscience-advocating anti-vaxxer... but he's no Chuck Grassley.

/Such a strange place politically speaking
 
2013-02-13 09:33:03 AM  

jjorsett: Meanwhile, there are 22 Senators apparently still in favor of violence against women

And apparently 100 Senators who don't give a shiat about violence against men.


And yet one more fkn dipshiat who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Apparently, being a victim is more important than being informed for today's "conservative"
 
2013-02-13 09:37:31 AM  

quickdraw: Emposter: meat0918: wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.
...
Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Why would he of all people open himself up to that if he is considering a presidential run?

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

A) He's banking on the fact that the American public and media have the attention and memory of a dead drunk fruit fly and won't remember this, or
B) He's going to say something along the lines of "I would have reauthorized the old act, which protected women from domestic violence.  However, those evil libruls put in poison pill changes to give special rights to gays and illegals, so I had to vote against it, for America," hoping that the idiot/bigot vote is enough to make it worthwhile.

He's going for the Hispanic wife-beater vote.


Maybe he'll be on the cover again for next week's Time Magazine and the story will explain how his mother is calling again about her bruises.
 
2013-02-13 09:43:42 AM  
Makes me think we should pass some "Patriot act"

And anyone who is against it, is some Godless, communist heathen.

dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.


I hope this bill passes so the hitting women loophole can be removed from our society.
 
2013-02-13 09:47:29 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.


Wasn't it the Visa's thing?  Undocumented illegal immigrants who are the victims of domestic abuse can have their cases heard without fear of deportation because they will be granted temporary visas?  If you take EVERYTHING else out you're left with "Undocumented Illegal Immigrants ... will be granted temporary visas."

And that's terrible.
 
2013-02-13 10:05:25 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.


Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.
 
2013-02-13 10:06:35 AM  

o5iiawah: dj_bigbird: I thought it was already illegal to hit people.

I hope this bill passes so the hitting women loophole can be removed from our society.


Two more for the "I don't know what I'm talking about" list.

You guys are really good at criticizing bills that don't say what you think they say.
 
2013-02-13 10:10:15 AM  

I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.


See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.
 
2013-02-13 10:31:17 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

I Think it's cute how they pretend to care about the Constitution.


I think it is cute that the libs think that these 22 are actually FOR violence against women. In other words, only someone for violence would have voted against the bill. Yep, can't be any other reason than that. Intellectually dishonesty at best. This is why we can't have debates in this country.
 
2013-02-13 10:43:33 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.


Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unfortunately, I could not support the final, entire legislation that contains new provisions that could have potentially adverse consequences," Rubio said.

CLEARLY he is FOR violence against women.
 
2013-02-13 10:45:03 AM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)

The legislation includes a provision, backed by a bipartisan group headed by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would speed up the analysis of DNA evidence in rape cases. There's now a rape kit backlog estimated at 400,000, with evidence that might link an assailant to a victim now sitting on police department shelves for months and even years.

?????????????????????

 
2013-02-13 10:46:51 AM  

badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unfortunately ...


Thanks for pointing out the logical fallacy that we're all making here (regarding Rubio) -- not saying that I would (from his perspective) vote against VAWA due to the "controversial aspects" but I sure as hell would pick my fights elsewhere. Jesus Christ are they all that short-sighted?
 
2013-02-13 10:52:18 AM  

badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unfortunately ...


I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
 
2013-02-13 11:00:26 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unf ...


Trying to be fair--but might be projecting a bit, but I think he's saying that the controversial/unconstitutional issues outweighed his support for the human rights(this is where I have a problem with the "nay" voters) issues...  Therefore he MUST be for woman-beating. Not necessarily true. Dumb as fark, but not necessarily a true statement. Not sure which logical fallacy that is, though. Composition/Division?
 
2013-02-13 11:00:51 AM  

star_topology: badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unf .

Emotion over fact. What a grw

star_topology: badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unf ...


It is too bad we are now reduced to voting for things that sound good based on emotion as opposed to allowing legitiamate arguments based on facts. Reducing this to only someone for violence against women is intellectually dishonest. But I guess we are now reduced to us vs. them and political points.
 
2013-02-13 11:03:50 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.


Except that complaining that non-native americans would be tried in native courts for crimes that OCCUR ON RESERVATIONS is not legitimate.
You commit a crime in South Carolina - you're tried in South Carolina.
You commit a crime in NYC, you get tried in NYC.
You commit a crime in Canada, you get tried in Canada.

In none of those situations does the citizenship of the accused change a thing.
Now, under current law, if you're a non-native American who commits a crime on an indian reservation, you aren't tried on that reservation.  You're tried in a federal court - assuming of course, that a federal prosecutor is willing to use the limited time available to the court (and his career) to try to toss someone in jail for simple assault.

If you're not a native and you beat your native girlfriend, the tribal police can't even toss you in the drunk tank for the night.  After the Supreme Court case I cited was decided, the tribal police can't lock you up even if you beat up one of THEM.  They'd have to call some FBI agent to drive out and arrest you.
 
2013-02-13 11:05:28 AM  

star_topology: Lionel Mandrake: badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitution ...


You ignore the fact that he would have voted for the bill had certain provisions NOT been in the bill. Saying that he voted against "rights" is a strawman argument.
 
2013-02-13 11:05:52 AM  

star_topology: Trying to be fair--but might be projecting a bit, but I think he's saying that the controversial/unconstitutional issues outweighed his support for the human rights(this is where I have a problem with the "nay" voters) issues...  Therefore he MUST be for woman-beating. Not necessarily true. Dumb as fark, but not necessarily a true statement. Not sure which logical fallacy that is, though. Composition/Division?


Maybe.  It doesn't address what I was talking about, though.  I was criticizing the dipshiats in this thread and their "So violence against men is OK?/Why do women get special rights?" bullcrap.  They are clearly talking out of their asses, and judging by how these asinine complaints keep cropping up, they are more interested in whining than in dealing with actual facts.

I have admitted that there are legitimate concerns here.  Not enough to vote against it, IMO, but still legit.

But the "boo-hoo pity us poor oppressed men" BS is just plain retarded.  No offense to retarded people.
 
2013-02-13 11:09:26 AM  

wxboy: For the record, here are the 22 who voted no.


NAYs ---22

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)


I bet the first words Inhofe's grandchildren learned to say were: "Grandpa is an asshole."
 
2013-02-13 11:10:20 AM  

Karac: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Except that complaining that non-native americans would be tried in native courts for crimes that OCCUR ON RESERVATIONS is not legitimate.
You commit a crime in South Carolina - you're tried in South Carolina.
You commit a crime in NYC, you get tried in NYC.
You commit a crime in Canada, you get tried in Canada.

In none of those situations does the citizenship of the accused change a thing.
Now, under current law, if you're a non-native American who commits a crime on an indian reservation, you aren't tried on that reservation.  You're tried in a federal court - assuming of course, that a federal prosecutor is willing to use the limited time available to the court (and his career) to try to toss someone in jail for simple assault.

If you're not a native and you beat your native girlfriend, the tribal police can't even toss you in the drunk tank for the night.  After the Supreme Court case I cited was decided, the tribal police can't lock you up even if you beat up one of THEM.  They'd have to call some FBI agent to drive out and arrest you.



Which makes me wonder why this travishamockery isn't being framed as support of domestic violence AND violence against Native Americans, rather than this idiotic "reasonable" objection that's being spun as some kind of legitimate sovereignty fear.
 
2013-02-13 11:12:24 AM  

Karac: Except that complaining that non-native americans would be tried in native courts for crimes that OCCUR ON RESERVATIONS is not legitimate.
You commit a crime in South Carolina - you're tried in South Carolina.
You commit a crime in NYC, you get tried in NYC.
You commit a crime in Canada, you get tried in Canada.

In none of those situations does the citizenship of the accused change a thing.
Now, under current law, if you're a non-native American who commits a crime on an indian reservation, you aren't tried on that reservation.  You're tried in a federal court - assuming of course, that a federal prosecutor is willing to use the limited time available to the court (and his career) to try to toss someone in jail for simple assault.

If you're not a native and you beat your native girlfriend, the tribal police can't even toss you in the drunk tank for the night.  After the Supreme Court case I cited was decided, the tribal police can't lock you up even if you beat up one of THEM.  They'd have to call some FBI agent to drive out and arrest you.


I've heard conflicting opinions on this, and I'll admit, I haven't done my homework to check it out.  But it at least has the  appearanceof a legitimate concern, unlike the "what about us poor men?" and "isn't it already illegal to beat women?" derp.

If it is not a legitimate concern, then I guess that leaves budget issues as the last legitimate concern.  Not that I agree with the complaint, but it again at least has the appearance of being a legitimate concern.

Still, really fkn stupid (politically) to vote "no" when you are trying to close the gender gap.
 
2013-02-13 11:14:07 AM  

badaboom: Saying that he voted against "rights" is a strawman argument.


Ah, you're right. In an effort to be a more balanced (read: fair/intellectually honest) debater, I've been reading up on the different types, and put up this poster in my cubicle:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

Lionel Mandrake: They are clearly talking out of their asses, and judging by how these asinine complaints keep cropping up, they are more interested in whining than in dealing with actual facts.


This.
 
2013-02-13 11:16:03 AM  

cman: spongeboob: cman

Al Gore, 1988: abortion is wrong
Al Gore, 1998: abortion is a right

A lot of things can change in a decade


So what you are saying is that Al Gore is a role model for behavior
 
2013-02-13 11:17:03 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Still, really fkn stupid (politically) to vote "no" when you are trying to close the gender gap.


And exactly.
 
2013-02-13 11:29:10 AM  
One more thing on the nay votes, this just continues the long standing GOP tradition of throwing the baby out with the bathwater
 
2013-02-13 11:35:07 AM  

I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.


Why do you have a problem with people being tried by the courts governing where the crime was committed?
If non-natives shouldn't be tried by Native courts then Natives shouldn't be triedby  non-native  courts right?
 
2013-02-13 11:55:30 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: You guys are really good at criticizing bills that don't say what you think they say.


Its a bunch of things which are already state or local issues, or "clarifies existing law"
It is also a gotcha-type bill with an innocuous name that is political suicide for anyone to vote against.
 
2013-02-13 12:03:22 PM  

o5iiawah: Lionel Mandrake: You guys are really good at criticizing bills that don't say what you think they say.

Its a bunch of things which are already state or local issues, or "clarifies existing law"
It is also a gotcha-type bill with an innocuous name that is political suicide for anyone to vote against.


Fine.  Make that point.  Drop this bullshiat:

I hope this bill passes so the hitting women loophole can be removed from our society.
 
2013-02-13 12:33:16 PM  

badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unfortunately ...


If this is his beef with the new law, he should hold his nose and vote for it.  This is a non-sensical reason for voting against it.  While there was little chance of me voting for him if he ran in 2016, now I'm sure I don't want this incompetent as my president.
 
2013-02-13 12:46:26 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans


But, but, but government overreach! We don't know what's really in that bill (which has been around for nearly two decades).

/actual argument I heard against it
 
2013-02-13 12:48:51 PM  

I should be in the kitchen: Lionel Mandrake: Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans

But, but, but government overreach! We don't know what's really in that bill (which has been around for nearly two decades).

/actual argument I heard against it


Well, you know how devious and crafty those Kenyan, Muslim dictators can be.  Who knows what sort of job-killing communist government programs for moochers 0bongo stuffed in there then covered up!
 
2013-02-13 01:03:06 PM  

MadHatter500: badaboom: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Sen. Marco Rubio was among the 22 GOP senators who voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act - a law that the Florida Republican said he largely supports but couldn't ultimately vote to renew because of new provisions in the bill.

Among his reasons for opposing the legislation, which passed 78-22: it would divert funds from domestic violence programs to sexual assault programs, even though "there's no evidence to suggest this shift will result in a greater number of convictions," Rubio argued in a statement.
"These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best, but instead this new legislation would put those decisions into the hands of distant Washington bureaucrats in the Department of Justice," Rubio said.
In that statement, explaining his opposition, Rubio ticked off several parts of the law he supports, such as federal programs to prevent and reduce violence, and combining 13 existing programs to four to make those programs more efficient.
Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.
"Unf ...



Yes, you HAVE to vote for anything that makes you feel good. Let's not use our brains. The good old "won't someone think of the children" argument

blog.bobbylikesbeer.com
 
2013-02-13 01:10:25 PM  

clowncar on fire: Has anyone bothered to look into why these guys objected to renewal of VAWA other than "they were republic*nts- that's why")?  I'm sure there must have been some sort of conflict that would make them so overtly against protection women from violence and face obvious public ridicule from both opponants and constituants alike- seems rather a bold move simply to prove they were all asshats.

Was it concern over the Indians being able to basically createand enforce their own law and how it is applied to "outsiders" who would normally be subject to state and federal law?  Was there concern that this may create a pecedent for other communities to enforce their own version of law rather than following the law of the land?

Regardless- I'm R but am still backing the defeat of ol' Mitch.  As far as I'm concerned, he 's run his course no matter which side of the fence he was on this issue anyhow.


Well, no, if you'd read the first thread a few...what, months, back where they originally opposed it, apparently a bill that literally only extends funding\protection to immigrants, gays, minorities and men (and I mean there was  no pork) is 'impossible to vote for'.

Courts were not mentioned. It was just about extending protection to people who weren't good God-fearing white women.
 
2013-02-13 01:18:44 PM  

badaboom: Yes, you HAVE to vote for anything that makes you feel good. Let's not use our brains. The good old "won't someone think of the children" argument


When VAWA was renewed under Bush in '05, the support was so overwhelming across the board that the Senate declared "unanimous consent," meaning that there was no need for a formal vote because nobody objected.  In theHouse, the bill (which had the same name) was passed with only 4 "no" votes (2 Rs and 2 Ds) and over 400 "yes" votes.

So, am I to understand that the Republican party had a pretty good number of members who had a backbone and stood by their principles in 1994, but only two in the entire Congress who stuck by their principles in 2005 (while the rest of them caved because of the name of the bill - unchanged, btw, from 1994), but then the party partially rediscovered their backbone and voted against the Orwellian "VAWA" (still the same name) 2013?

I find this most interesting.  Insane, but interesting.
 
2013-02-13 01:49:32 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I should be in the kitchen: Lionel Mandrake: Votes on VAWA

1994 (Clinton as President) ~ Senate: 61-38 ; House 235-195

2005 Re-authorization (W as President) ~ Senate: unanimous consent (no need to even hold a formal vote) ; House: 415-4

2013 Re-authorization (Obama) ~ Senate: 78-22 ; House: TBD

Clearly, this is a matter of principle for the GOP, not politics.

Get bent, Republicans

But, but, but government overreach! We don't know what's really in that bill (which has been around for nearly two decades).

/actual argument I heard against it

Well, you know how devious and crafty those Kenyan, Muslim dictators can be.  Who knows what sort of job-killing communist government programs for moochers 0bongo stuffed in there then covered up!


shiat, I don't get the memos anymore. I never know when it's Obama is a Communist Tyrant Day or Obama is a Do-Nothing Empty Suit Day.
 
2013-02-13 02:11:57 PM  
Last week almost ever woman, in my predominately female office, sent an email to Senator Coats (R-IN) and basically told him they'd never vote for another Republican again if he didn't vote for it. They were passing out flyers and stuff to each other about the vote.

My guess is the woman in the State got to him, because normally you see his dumb-ass vote right along side the other retarded Republicans.
 
2013-02-13 02:44:27 PM  
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/violence-against-wome n -act-needs-reform/

also
i1172.photobucket.com
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
giving special money and protections to women, when Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, is sexit agaisnt men and a waste of money.
 
2013-02-13 02:48:35 PM  

spongeboob: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

Why do you have a problem with people being tried by the courts governing where the crime was committed?
If non-natives shouldn't be tried by Native courts then Natives shouldn't be triedby  non-native  courts right?


You should look up tribal sovereignty. Even though they can govern themselves they cannot govern non-natives. Those cases would be handled by the federal court to ensure that the non-native was granted their civil rights.
 
2013-02-13 03:11:31 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/violence-against-wome n -act-needs-reform/

also
[i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
giving special money and protections to women, when Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, is sexit agaisnt men and a waste of money.


Ever heard of the "Equal Protection Clause?"  It means that government money can't be excluded from people based on certain things.  Like gender.  There is nothing in VAWA that is unavailable to men.

Do try to learn about something before you get all self-righteous, m'kay?

Or are your feelings hurt because the word "men" isn't in the title of the bill?

Because that would be pretty childish.
 
2013-02-13 03:11:38 PM  
First off, totally opposed to violence against women (and men!)

That being said.  Did the title of the bill end with the words "...and for other purposes"?  If so, does anyone have any highlights of what pieces of truly repugnant legislation were attached to this bill?  That stuff always makes for interesting reading.

//always been in favor of single purpose legislation.  Make each law stand on it's own merit.
 
2013-02-13 03:29:24 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/violence-against-wome n -act-needs-reform/

also
[i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
giving special money and protections to women, when Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, is sexit agaisnt men and a waste of money.

Ever heard of the "Equal Protection Clause?"  It means that government money can't be excluded from people based on certain things.  Like gender.  There is nothing in VAWA that is unavailable to men.

Do try to learn about something before you get all self-righteous, m'kay?

Or are your feelings hurt because the word "men" isn't in the title of the bill?

Because that would be pretty childish.


that is what things would be like in a perfect world. but if you read the link at the top, it says that although men are hit by women just as much, an almost negligible amount of spending is used on mens shelters, legal resources, etc. secondly, it also says that vawa has not reduced the perpetration of DV. meaning that it has not produced results. it costs alot of money, is sexist, takes away presumption of innocence, and doesnt not produce results. from those criteria, i would think it is a bad law and should be removed or reformed.
 
2013-02-13 04:09:25 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Lionel Mandrake: GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/violence-against-wome n -act-needs-reform/

also
[i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
giving special money and protections to women, when Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, is sexit agaisnt men and a waste of money.

Ever heard of the "Equal Protection Clause?"  It means that government money can't be excluded from people based on certain things.  Like gender.  There is nothing in VAWA that is unavailable to men.

Do try to learn about something before you get all self-righteous, m'kay?

Or are your feelings hurt because the word "men" isn't in the title of the bill?

Because that would be pretty childish.

that is what things would be like in a perfect world. but if you read the link at the top, it says that although men are hit by women just as much, an almost negligible amount of spending is used on mens shelters, legal resources, etc. secondly, it also says that vawa has not reduced the perpetration of DV. meaning that it has not produced results. it costs alot of money, is sexist, takes away presumption of innocence, and doesnt not produce results. from those criteria, i would think it is a bad law and should be removed or reformed.


Wow, people want to cut down on waste and fraud.  Amazing.  People want it to be more effective.  Shocking.

Also, men may be hit by women just as often, but do you think the typical man striking the typical woman is likely to have the same effect as that woman striking a man?

If everything in VAWA is mandated by the Constitution to be accessible to men, how is it sexist?  If there are far fewer shelters for men, it's probably because there are far fewer men who have grouped together and looked for spaces and beds for these men and lobbied local agencies, individuals and companies to provide money, material and labor to rent or build said space staff to operate them.

So get off your ass, round up all these oppressed men and your fellow concerned FARKers and get to it.  Or continue to whine online about being a victim.
 
2013-02-13 05:20:44 PM  
Lionel Mandrake:

Wow, people want to cut down on waste and fraud.  Amazing.  People want it to be more effective.  Shocking.

Also, men may be hit by women just as often, but do you think the typical man striking the typical woman is likely to have the same effect as that woman striking a man?

If everything in VAWA is mandated by the Constitution to be accessible to men, how is it sexist?  If there are far fewer shelters for men, it's probably because there are far fewer men who have grouped together and looked for spaces and beds for these men and lobbied local agencies, individuals and companies to provide money, material and labor to rent or build sai ...


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/110712 
well im not sure how to respond to some of the things you posted but you refer to the predominate aggressor idea in VAWA. it says that no matter what has happened in the dispute, the larger and stronger person must be arrested, meaning the man. that is wrong and it is sexist and against the constitution. thats why the predominant aggressor idea, among other things, needs to be removed from VAWA.
 
2013-02-13 06:00:54 PM  

cman: Would have the "You are with us or you are against us" phrase do better? I wanted to give a recent example that is still in everyone's memory to remind them that just because these Congressfolk voted no, that does not mean they support violence against women.


No it doesn't.  But they probably do.  Am I being facetious?  Was subby being facetious?  Who knows?  What a stupid point to get hung up on.
 
2013-02-13 06:02:59 PM  
most recent full text i could find:

http://www.nnedv.org/docs/Policy/VAWA2005_PL109_162.pdf

section 502
 
2013-02-13 06:42:35 PM  
i let a girl punch me in the face last night multiple times, does that mean she's a felon? or am i? for aiding and abetting domestic violence?

you all have fun with your legislative circlejerk. i'll be here waiting in reality for when this lackluster clusterfark comes crashing down.
 
2013-02-13 07:15:27 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/24/violence-against-wome n -act-needs-reform/

also
[i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
giving special money and protections to women, when Domestic violence is not a gendered problem, is sexit agaisnt men and a waste of money.


Their violence is non-reciprocal because that violence tends to be murder!
 
2013-02-13 09:07:18 PM  

I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.


No No NO STOP THAT! You'll ruin the whole "Republicans hate women" vibe this thread has going. You can't expect people to read the WHOLE article anyway.
 
2013-02-13 10:08:12 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: well im not sure how to respond to some of the things you posted but you refer to the predominate aggressor idea in VAWA. it says that no matter what has happened in the dispute, the larger and stronger person must be arrested, meaning the man. that is wrong and it is sexist and against the constitution. thats why the predominant aggressor idea, among other things, needs to be removed from VAWA.


Please quote that portion of the bill.
 
2013-02-14 12:08:54 AM  

spongeboob: Red Shirt Blues: Rubio added that he was concerned with a provision that would grant tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against non-Native Americans on tribal lands - which several other Republicans have said could raise constitutional problems.

Wait this is almost on the level of "I'm not sure that it it not unopposite day" but if I understand he is saying that he doesn't want the courts on the reservations to be able to try criminals who aren't Native Americans.
I don't get this, I don't get this at all.  If I travel to New York and speed I can't say you can't put me on trial  I am from PA.
Do Republicans really want to be able to go on reservations and abuse Native American Women?


The appropriate analogy here is to imagine you, as a civilian, are on a military installation and commit a federal offense. You would not want to be tried in a court-martial, which would be unconstitutional. However, you would be eligible to be tried in a civilian federal magistrate's court, or federal district court (depending upon the severity of the offense.)

Actually, this happens every day, across America and the bill should've been written to divert prosecution of non-tribal suspects to the federal courts, not the indian courts.
 
2013-02-14 05:51:36 AM  

knowless: i let a girl punch me in the face last night multiple times, does that mean she's a felon? or am i? for aiding and abetting domestic violence?

you all have fun with your legislative circlejerk. i'll be here waiting in reality for when this lackluster clusterfark comes crashing down.


Youtube is thataway.
 
2013-02-14 09:00:15 AM  

lordjupiter: Karac: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Except that complaining that non-native americans would be tried in native courts for crimes that OCCUR ON RESERVATIONS is not legitimate.
You commit a crime in South Carolina - you're tried in South Carolina.
You commit a crime in NYC, you get tried in NYC.
You commit a crime in Canada, you get tried in Canada.

In none of those situations does the citizenship of the accused change a thing.
Now, under current law, if you're a non-native American who commits a crime on an indian reservation, you aren't tried on that reservation.  You're tried in a federal court - assuming of course, that a federal prosecutor is willing to use the limited time available to the court (and his career) to try to toss someone in jail for simple assault.

If you're not a native and you beat your native girlfriend, the tribal police can't even toss you in the drunk tank for the night.  After the Supreme Court case I cited was decided, the tribal police can't lock you up even if you beat up one of THEM.  They'd have to call some FBI agent to drive out and arrest you.


Which makes me wonder why this travishamockery isn't being framed as support of domestic violence AND violence against Native Americans, rather than this idiotic "reasonable" objection that's being spun as some kind o ...


Well this conversation has gotten too long, but This.

These aren't poison pills.  Letting the GOP play that game opens up the field to future manipulation.

Sen. Rubio:  Did you vote against the provision that provides an avenue to justice for native American men and women living on reservations who are assaulted by US citizens?  Before this bill, they couldn't really do anything about it but suffer in silence.  Did you vote against the provision that extends a temporarily open hand to men and women who are the victims of abuse while on American soil?  Do you believe that seeking a better life for your family should mean that women have to return to abusive relationships rather than tell the police?  Would you rather have an undocumented, abusive illegal immigrant in our country, or would you like to empower their victims to help us catch them, stop them, and deport them?

The democrats have allowed the republicans to control the language of the debates for decades and are only just now coming around to the idea that they have to fight back.  Laying off on this bill is a bad idea.  Dig in.  And dig in hard.  RUIN these assholes.  Not one woman in the mix of Nays doesn't help their case.
 
2013-02-15 12:33:04 PM  

BeesNuts: lordjupiter: Karac: Lionel Mandrake: I alone am best: cameroncrazy1984: cman: Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.

There is literally nothing in this bill that you can conceivably find that would justify voting against it, unless you're a Family Values Republican, apparently.

Except the part where non-native americans get to be tried by native american courts.

See, people?  This is what's called  "legitimate criticism."

NOT a legitimate criticism:  Why is it OK to hit men?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Why do women get special treatment?
NOT a legitimate criticism :  Isn't hitting women already illegal?

...and all the other derp coming from 90% of the critics in this thread.

Except that complaining that non-native americans would be tried in native courts for crimes that OCCUR ON RESERVATIONS is not legitimate.
You commit a crime in South Carolina - you're tried in South Carolina.
You commit a crime in NYC, you get tried in NYC.
You commit a crime in Canada, you get tried in Canada.

In none of those situations does the citizenship of the accused change a thing.
Now, under current law, if you're a non-native American who commits a crime on an indian reservation, you aren't tried on that reservation.  You're tried in a federal court - assuming of course, that a federal prosecutor is willing to use the limited time available to the court (and his career) to try to toss someone in jail for simple assault.

If you're not a native and you beat your native girlfriend, the tribal police can't even toss you in the drunk tank for the night.  After the Supreme Court case I cited was decided, the tribal police can't lock you up even if you beat up one of THEM.  They'd have to call some FBI agent to drive out and arrest you.


Which makes me wonder why this travishamockery isn't being framed as support of domestic violence AND violence against Native Americans, rather than this idiotic "reasonable" objection that's being spun a ...


Non-Native American citizens should not be subject to Indian courts, period. A non-Native American would never get a fair trial in one of those courts, and if you think otherwise, you've obviously never been on a reservation.
 
Displayed 320 of 320 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  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