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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 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 »
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