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 320
    More: News, Violence Against Women Act, violence against women, Sen. Patrick Leahy, House Republicans, domestic violence, federal courts, House Majority Leader  
•       •       •

3501 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 7:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report