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 92
    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»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-12 06:33:54 PM  
8 votes:
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 04:22:23 PM  
8 votes:
In the interest of fairness, here's a list of Democrat Senators who voted Nay:
2013-02-12 09:18:45 PM  
5 votes:

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 07:41:12 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:21:48 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:16:43 PM  
4 votes:
I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.
2013-02-12 03:58:14 PM  
4 votes:
I thought it was already illegal to hit people.
2013-02-12 09:05:38 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:32:54 PM  
3 votes:
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 07:25:52 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:20:58 PM  
3 votes:
angryblackladychronicles.com

Their faces make want to commit violence.
2013-02-12 06:10:17 PM  
3 votes:
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 05:58:56 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:24:29 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2013-02-13 11:03:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:57:17 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-12 11:49:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:32:04 PM  
2 votes:

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


but what about MEN's rights a bloo blah bloo
2013-02-12 11:27:33 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:36:15 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:48:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:29:14 PM  
2 votes:
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 09:17:26 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:13:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:12:24 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:11:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:11:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:09:17 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:02:28 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:41:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:05:01 PM  
2 votes:
So basically 22 senators read the law and saw how horrible it was.  The other 78 are morons, including all democrats
2013-02-12 08:03:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:38:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:25:35 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:24:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:21:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:18:55 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:51:05 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:55:26 PM  
2 votes:
22 Patriotic Christians.
2013-02-13 12:33:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:35:07 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:33:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:04:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:52:39 AM  
1 votes:

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?
Xai
2013-02-13 04:50:45 AM  
1 votes:
so what we have learned is republicans are woman beaters.
2013-02-13 03:50:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:13:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:12:17 AM  
1 votes:
Well, this thread left me sad.  Good to learn how many folks are opposed to defending abused women, regardless of context.
2013-02-13 12:11:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:03:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:02:08 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:01:41 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:01:27 AM  
1 votes:

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
2013-02-12 11:57:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:54:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:34:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:31:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:28:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:24:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:58:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:53:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:35:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:30:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:18:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:08:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:42:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:15:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:15:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:08:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:36:31 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:23:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:23:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:12:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:09:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:07:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:57:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:53:48 PM  
1 votes:
Courageous Oklahomans not protecting Oklahoma women, except from their own vagina's,

Amirite?
2013-02-12 07:43:56 PM  
1 votes:
News Flash > Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Does not like the females .
2013-02-12 07:37:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:35:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:31:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:19:58 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:43:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:54:30 PM  
1 votes:
ANd they are all Republicans, but I'm a big meanie for pointing that out, aren't I?
2013-02-12 04:52:56 PM  
1 votes:
IIRC, there's a chance it might help non-citizens, so fark 'em all.
2013-02-12 04:18:34 PM  
1 votes:
Enough with the "You are with us or you are with the terrorists" mindset, please.
2013-02-12 04:13:40 PM  
1 votes:
No, submitter, the VAWA also protects male victims of domestic violence.
2013-02-12 04:12:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:03:09 PM  
1 votes:
Great, now those women are going to be running rampant, taking advantage of their protected status.
2013-02-12 04:03:00 PM  
1 votes:
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)
 
Displayed 92 of 92 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report