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 35
    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 (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
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 04:21:13 PM
8 votes:
Apparently those 22 are still pissed that the Senate voted down their proposed "I already told her twice" amendment.
2013-02-12 10:36:15 PM
3 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 09:01:30 PM
3 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.


Hey this is Fark. Let's be honest, none of our Canadian girlfriends actually exist.
2013-02-12 07:30:14 PM
3 votes:

AkaDad: [angryblackladychronicles.com image 590x494]

Their faces make want to commit violence.


What?  It's an amazing cross section of Americans from all walks of life, a celebration of our diversity!  Look--there's a black guy!
2013-02-13 05:28:16 AM
2 votes:

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


i915.photobucket.com
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 07:20:58 PM
2 votes:
angryblackladychronicles.com

Their faces make want to commit violence.
2013-02-12 03:58:14 PM
2 votes:
I thought it was already illegal to hit people.
2013-02-12 03:55:26 PM
2 votes:
22 Patriotic Christians.
2013-02-13 07:43:26 AM
1 votes:
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 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?
2013-02-13 12:57:17 AM
1 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 11:57:57 PM
1 votes:
Violence Against Jort Owners Act
2013-02-12 11:56:46 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Violence Against White Middle Class Totally Oppressed Men and Men Only Act
2013-02-12 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 10:30:15 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 10:23:08 PM
1 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.


What if my Canadian girlfriend and I got ino a canoe on an Indian reservation, then paddled it down to the Rio Grande and beat her up right there in the center of the river, between the US and Mexico. Who gets jurisdiction then?
2013-02-12 09:13:28 PM
1 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 09:11:36 PM
1 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 08:53:18 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Maybe it's more like beating up on your girlfriend at her dad's place and then trying to get to the town sheriff before her dad has an opportunity to deliver his own brand of justice on you.
2013-02-12 08:06:01 PM
1 votes:

Princess Ryans Knickers: Good! Men are pigs anyway


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

"Over 160 million women across the country are watching and waiting to see if the House will act on this bill and finally provide them the protections from violence they deserve," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
2013-02-12 07:43:56 PM
1 votes:
News Flash > Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Does not like the females .
2013-02-12 07:34:20 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Lemme explain to you how this works. Either:

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

2013-02-12 07:34:13 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)


Ahh, the Usual Suspects, I see! And they even rounded themselves up, thereby saving the Inspector the trouble of searching for them!
2013-02-12 07:25:52 PM
1 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 07:25:35 PM
1 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 07:19:58 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 06:03:37 PM
1 votes:

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


No one knows.  Liberals are always on the right side, and after a generation or so, conservatives tell themselves that they were, too.  Did you know that MLK and Rosa Parks were big defenders of the 2nd Amendment?
2013-02-12 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 04:51:05 PM
1 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 04:16:43 PM
1 votes:
I often wonder what it must feel like to be consistently on the wrong side of history.
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 04:08:12 PM
1 votes:
78-22 is no landslide.

/Dick Morris math
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.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report