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.

(Huffington Post)   Good: House GOP to vote on Violence Against Women Act next week. Facepalm: They stripped out coverage for lesbians and Native Americans - AGAIN   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, House GOP, Violence Against Women Act, GOP, LGBT, reauthorization, United States House Committee on Rules, House Majority Leader, domestic violence  
•       •       •

3460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2013 at 4:34 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



253 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-22 01:17:44 PM  
These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?
 
2013-02-22 01:20:57 PM  
Or, in short, House Republicans vote against bipartisan Violence Against Women Act again.
 
2013-02-22 01:22:19 PM  
They need to get called out on the carpet-munchers over this!!
 
2013-02-22 01:22:42 PM  
At this point, can't Pelosi try to get a discharge petition on the Senate passed bill?
 
2013-02-22 01:23:23 PM  
"Neither House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) nor House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have released statements about Friday's bill being introduced. "

Spinelees little farktards.
 
2013-02-22 01:24:10 PM  
Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16
 
2013-02-22 01:27:02 PM  
Keep it up, Republicans.  Sure, it would be much better for America if you allowed your mentally challenged party to die with feeble little whimper, but, if you insist on going out in a spectacular fireball, I don't think anyone's going to stop you.
 
2013-02-22 01:27:38 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16


The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.
 
2013-02-22 01:28:02 PM  
Those who cannot learn from history....
 
2013-02-22 01:29:06 PM  
All dicks, all the time.
 
2013-02-22 01:30:12 PM  
Actually they stripped out coverage for same-sex couples of both genders.
 
2013-02-22 02:16:15 PM  
It should only cover legitimate violence.
 
2013-02-22 02:43:28 PM  

Diogenes: It should only cover legitimate violence.


A woman's body has a way of shutting down a non-legitimate beating.
 
2013-02-22 02:45:51 PM  
They're stripping lesbians of coverage?  I've seen something like that on the internet somewhere....
 
2013-02-22 02:52:42 PM  

propasaurus: Diogenes: It should only cover legitimate violence.

A woman's body has a way of shutting down a non-legitimate beating.


Those bruises and broken bones are a gift from god.
 
2013-02-22 02:56:46 PM  
Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.
 
2013-02-22 03:06:38 PM  

FloydA: propasaurus: Diogenes: It should only cover legitimate violence.

A woman's body has a way of shutting down a non-legitimate beating.

Those bruises and broken bones are a gift from god.


And each of those stitches is like saying a Hail Mary.
 
2013-02-22 03:07:01 PM  

give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.


Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?
 
2013-02-22 03:09:06 PM  
As a male, I'm proud to share my second-class status with the LGBT community.
 
2013-02-22 03:10:32 PM  
I'm reminded of alywa's post from another thread.  In literally every situation where there is a clear choice as to right or wrong, the GOP deliberately chooses the wrong side.
 
2013-02-22 03:11:24 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: As a male, I'm proud to share my second-class status with the LGBT community.


lolwut?
 
2013-02-22 03:17:29 PM  

give me doughnuts: women


the VAWA covers both genders

reality exists
 
2013-02-22 03:25:42 PM  
Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?
 
2013-02-22 03:29:24 PM  
Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?
 
2013-02-22 03:31:41 PM  

cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?


Maybe you should just stick to the Geek or Entertainment tabs.
 
2013-02-22 03:32:29 PM  

propasaurus: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Maybe you should just stick to the Geek or Entertainment tabs.


I was actually being serious.
 
2013-02-22 03:38:42 PM  

Jackson Herring: give me doughnuts: women

the VAWA covers both genders

reality exists


Am I the only one that sees VAWA and somehow thinks "woo-woo" ala "High Anxiety?"

/"just for the sake of argument, cocky-doody"
//farkin' gop...
 
2013-02-22 03:42:20 PM  

cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?


Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.
 
2013-02-22 03:43:21 PM  

cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?


What are the hours like?
 
2013-02-22 03:44:04 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Keep it up, Republicans.  Sure, it would be much better for America if you allowed your mentally challenged party to die with feeble little whimper, but, if you insist on going out in a spectacular fireball, I don't think anyone's going to stop you.


"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
 
2013-02-22 04:02:02 PM  
Hmm, let's see.
The quote from Cantor's rep is that he is working to provide protections for all women.
However, the bill introduced strips access to many of the best programs away from LBGT folks.

Thus apparently the thinking is that is LBGT is not a woman. So does that make them men?
I suspect the truth is even much worse.
 
2013-02-22 04:19:26 PM  

whither_apophis: Jackson Herring: give me doughnuts: women

the VAWA covers both genders

reality exists

Am I the only one that sees VAWA and somehow thinks "woo-woo" ala "High Anxiety?"

/"just for the sake of argument, cocky-doody"
//farkin' gop...


Every time I see VAWA, I think coffee and hoagies.
 
2013-02-22 04:34:05 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


They're the one minority they can't use the "Go back to [your ancestors' country]!" with?
 
2013-02-22 04:36:47 PM  
I better get in some good old fashion woman beating before this thing passes.
 
2013-02-22 04:36:59 PM  
Every time I see VAWA I think "great, another three dozen barely sentient shiat wizards are going to complain about how it doesn't protect men in their fevered imaginations"
 
2013-02-22 04:37:22 PM  
Republicans are going to steamroll Alabama in 2016.   You libs are going to be so pissed.
 
2013-02-22 04:39:09 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Those who cannot learn from history....


republican History believes that Thomas Jefferson was a commie, Lincoln was anti states rights, and Ted Nugent is the Second Coming.
 
2013-02-22 04:39:56 PM  

Elandriel: I'm reminded of alywa's post from another thread.  In literally every situation where there is a clear choice as to right or wrong, the GOP deliberately chooses the wrong side.


The gop would rather rule in Hell than serve in heaven.
 
2013-02-22 04:42:13 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.


It might be the fever talking but yer hilarious.
 
2013-02-22 04:42:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: Every time I see VAWA I think "great, another three dozen barely sentient shiat wizards are going to complain about how it doesn't protect men in their fevered imaginations"


Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

Saying "pfft, straight men can protect themselves! Or Straight men are what we're protecting against", is awfully misandrist. And reinforces the perception that its men, not the violence, that is the problem.
 
2013-02-22 04:43:36 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?



I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.
 
2013-02-22 04:44:27 PM  
Shills are out in force today except in this thread - I wonder why.
 
2013-02-22 04:45:36 PM  

neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.


IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES
 
2013-02-22 04:45:59 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Shills are out in force today except in this thread - I wonder why.


Today is payday, there were waiting for the direct deposits to hit the bank accounts?
 
2013-02-22 04:46:53 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.


When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.
 
2013-02-22 04:46:59 PM  
These people have the gall to call themselves Christian
 
2013-02-22 04:47:33 PM  
As a liberal I'm loving this.

Yes! GOP show your true colors! Please keep doing this.  Please.  I'll even donate to your campaigns if you keep doing things like this.

GOP's worst enemy is it's own members.
 
2013-02-22 04:48:00 PM  

Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES


Well, not if the House has any say in it.

I do agree that the name should be changed, though.  To people that don't follow politics closely, you have to explain, "Yeah, it's called violence against women act, but it does protect more than just women."  They should re-title it something more general.
 
2013-02-22 04:49:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES


Well then change the farking name of the bill to reflect that. When it comes to politics like this, it helps if appearances match the substance, else you are generating your own farking opposition by intentionally being obtuse.

Not everyone is going to read a line by line itemization of the proposed legislation, but they will likely hear its name.
 
2013-02-22 04:50:39 PM  

cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?


Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.
 
2013-02-22 04:51:08 PM  
THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY.

"Violence against dykes and squaws is OK by us."
 
2013-02-22 04:51:13 PM  
a bloo blah bloo misandry
 
2013-02-22 04:51:50 PM  

KiltedBastich: Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.


From each according to his bleeps. To each according to his bloops.
 
2013-02-22 04:54:02 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: THE NEW Same OldREPUBLICAN PARTY.

"Violence against dykes and squaws is OK by us."


FTFY
 
2013-02-22 04:54:36 PM  
If you're still a Republican there's something seriously wrong with you. I'd pity you if it wasn't for the real damage you're doing to the rest of us and our nation.
 
2013-02-22 04:54:39 PM  

KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.


Perhaps socialism with a techno soundtrack.

But seriously, your idea was tried in Allende's Chile, at least as far as economic management:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

Too bad Nixon and Kissinger couldn't stand by while a democratically elected leader did what he was elected to do.
 
2013-02-22 04:54:41 PM  
lennavan:
I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!

/peachy keen
//exclamation points
 
2013-02-22 04:56:00 PM  

Citrate1007: rufus-t-firefly: THE NEW Same OldREPUBLICAN PARTY.

"Violence against dykes and squaws is OK by us."

FTFY


Well, yeah, but they're rebranding.

You don't have to change your product if you make the packaging say "New and Improved."
 
2013-02-22 04:56:07 PM  

neongoats: Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES

Well then change the farking name of the bill to reflect that. When it comes to politics like this, it helps if appearances match the substance, else you are generating your own farking opposition by intentionally being obtuse.

Not everyone is going to read a line by line itemization of the proposed legislation, but they will likely hear its name.


Then those idiots should just resign from the House
 
2013-02-22 04:59:11 PM  
the GOP needs to go away,  how does anything they do better the lives of the people who live here other then a select few who can bribe them?
 
2013-02-22 04:59:37 PM  
Shocking.
 
2013-02-22 04:59:52 PM  
isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?
 
2013-02-22 05:00:05 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


It's because of the split between tribal courts and state courts and who has jurisdiction. Currently, tribal courts have primary jdx over anything that happens on tribal land (as sovereign nations), as it should be; but some joker said "But this act means Indians would have to be tried in Federal court! Ohe Noes! This won't do!" and the whole thing got derailed.

It's kind of a valid argument, because domestic violence is totally out of control on reservations and needs addressing; but we all know the GOP is hardly concerned about either Native women's rights or tribal policy as a whole.
 
2013-02-22 05:01:14 PM  

skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?


Is it? I'm pretty sure being gay is not a protected class under federal law, or DOMA wouldn't be legal.
 
2013-02-22 05:02:45 PM  
"This legislation lacks necessary protections for victims of violence and rolls back current law."

How would this roll back current law? Don't you just love articles that include quotes but no details that would substantiate them?
 
2013-02-22 05:02:54 PM  

skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?


Nope.
 
2013-02-22 05:03:15 PM  

Lost Thought 00: neongoats: Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES

Well then change the farking name of the bill to reflect that. When it comes to politics like this, it helps if appearances match the substance, else you are generating your own farking opposition by intentionally being obtuse.

Not everyone is going to read a line by line itemization of the proposed legislation, but they will likely hear its name.

Then those idiots should just resign from the House


In what universe exactly?

Is it cool to sponsor a new bill, the "protection from gun violence for white women act." That actually protects everyone, male or female, regardless of if they are white, black, whatever? It's dumb to name a bill tat, right?

Just saying. Liberals(I include myself here), cause themselves arguments that are completely unnecessary for stupid non reasons like this.
 
2013-02-22 05:04:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: tribal courts have primary jdx over anything that happens on tribal land (as sovereign nations)


Again, no. Tribal courts have criminal jurisdiction only under very limited circumstances. Link
 
2013-02-22 05:05:15 PM  
Now when its voted down, they can blame those evil libruls for not protecting women.
 
2013-02-22 05:10:21 PM  
fark the god-damned GOP.
 
2013-02-22 05:12:39 PM  
 
2013-02-22 05:15:31 PM  

DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?

Is it? I'm pretty sure being gay is not a protected class under federal law, or DOMA wouldn't be legal.


huh... I guess you're right. That's farked up
 
2013-02-22 05:16:47 PM  

skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?


No, it is not. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Some states have made it so, but most have not. Just for comparison, here are the federally protected classes:

Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Age
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Veteran Status
Genetic Information
 
2013-02-22 05:16:54 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/


1) The VAWA protects everyone, not just women.
2) LGBT and Native Americans come in all genders.
3) You clearly have no clue how conditional probability works if you think that graphic is remotely relevant.
 
2013-02-22 05:17:27 PM  

neongoats: Is it cool to sponsor a new bill, the "protection from gun violence for white women act." That actually protects everyone, male or female, regardless of if they are white, black, whatever? It's dumb to name a bill tat, right?


Domestic violence against women is a much bigger issue than that against men, and so that's what the bill was primarily targeted at.

You also ignore that until the current breed of crazy republicans, there has never been an argument about this bill before. It's always been approved with massive bipartisan support. You don't need to spend time and effort debating the political ramifications of a name when there's simply not going to be any political rancor over it. And they've just kept the same name, since they're trying to renew a bill, not create something new.

skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?


Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
 
2013-02-22 05:17:31 PM  

DarwiOdrade: Shills are out in force today except in this thread - I wonder why.


Rush already done for the day. Talking points in Monday's show.
 
2013-02-22 05:17:55 PM  
Did they take out the redundant visa portion for illegal immigrants too?

I can't click on huffington post articles anymore.  What nutbag puts two autoplay videos on a site?
 
2013-02-22 05:20:21 PM  

cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.


discrimination is always a bad thing but especially when it is your own government perpetrating it
 
2013-02-22 05:21:00 PM  

The Why Not Guy: skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?

No, it is not. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Some states have made it so, but most have not. Just for comparison, here are the federally protected classes:

Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Age
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Veteran Status
Genetic Information


being a farking ginger should be added to that list

/farking ginger
 
2013-02-22 05:22:10 PM  
Ok, so maybe I can understand their position on lesbians (taking into account the stupidity of their "good Christain morals"), but how can their position on Native Americans be construed as anything but racist?
 
2013-02-22 05:22:12 PM  

skullkrusher: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

discrimination is always a bad thing but especially when it is your own government perpetrating it


Federal employees have protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However there is not a ban at the federal level against other groups engaging in such practices.
 
2013-02-22 05:22:22 PM  

neongoats: Is it cool to sponsor a new bill, the "protection from gun violence for white women act." That actually protects everyone, male or female, regardless of if they are white, black, whatever? It's dumb to name a bill tat, right?

Just saying. Liberals(I include myself here), cause themselves arguments that are completely unnecessary for stupid non reasons like this.


It isn't a new bill. It's over 20 years old and just kept getting renewed until the Republicans got all crazy about it this time. So yeah, the could have changed the name but why bother for something that just gets rubber stamped anyway?
 
2013-02-22 05:25:04 PM  
Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?
 
2013-02-22 05:28:59 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: Ok, so maybe I can understand their position on lesbians (taking into account the stupidity of their "good Christain morals"), but how can their position on Native Americans be construed as anything but racist?


It's about not wanting to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts. The Republican position makes sense insofar as one might want to avoid carving out one solitary exception to the general rule that tribal courts shall have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. On the other hand, tribal courts have extensive jurisdiction over domestic relations matters even where one party is not Indian, and there are immense benefits in allowing the tribal courts to address all of the issues at play in a particular family, especially since the tribes have been in the vanguard of the so-called "wellness court" movement which seeks to treat the legal, medical, and behavioral issues of a broken family holistically.
 
2013-02-22 05:29:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

discrimination is always a bad thing but especially when it is your own government perpetrating it

Federal employees have protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However there is not a ban at the federal level against other groups engaging in such practices.


The issue here seems to be that there is no ban preventing the government itself from acting in a discriminatory manner which is a farking abomination, imo
 
2013-02-22 05:31:38 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

discrimination is always a bad thing but especially when it is your own government perpetrating it

Federal employees have protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However there is not a ban at the federal level against other groups engaging in such practices.

The issue here seems to be that there is no ban preventing the government itself from acting in a discriminatory manner which is a farking abomination, imo


Well yes, that's much of what the gay rights movement has been about.
 
2013-02-22 05:33:05 PM  
But don't you dare call them bigots.

/farking bigots
 
2013-02-22 05:36:37 PM  
To their defense, some Lesbians chose to be the "man" in the relationship, so why are we covering people who chose to not act like women.

wow...I feel kinda sick after typing that. Is this what being a True ConservativeTM feels like everyday?
 
2013-02-22 05:37:13 PM  

Jackson Herring: give me doughnuts: women

the VAWA covers both genders

reality exists


So the LBGT crowd is neither male nor female?
 
2013-02-22 05:37:31 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-22 05:38:46 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

discrimination is always a bad thing but especially when it is your own government perpetrating it

Federal employees have protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. However there is not a ban at the federal level against other groups engaging in such practices.

The issue here seems to be that there is no ban preventing the government itself from acting in a discriminatory manner which is a farking abomination, imo


That's why even a lot of us straight people support gay rights. Seriously, call your Senators about ENDA, especially if they're on the HELP Committee. The House is probably a lost cause right now unless the Senate applies a little pressure.
 
2013-02-22 05:41:24 PM  

Emposter: But don't you dare call them bigots.

/farking bigots


Who needs to care about your rights anyway!

/Let lesbians in.
//Submitting to native American courts out.
 
2013-02-22 05:41:56 PM  
Look, children! This is what human pieces of shiat look like!
 
2013-02-22 05:42:24 PM  

I alone am best: Submitting to native American courts out.


Mind if I ask why?
 
2013-02-22 05:43:03 PM  
To be fair, native american's aren't people. Or, at least, don't deserve to be treated like one.

Manifest destiny, HO!!!

/I keed.  No really I keed, my daughter part mud blood.
 
2013-02-22 05:47:23 PM  
OMFG the repubs really are that damn clueless .
 
2013-02-22 05:54:44 PM  

neongoats: In what universe exactly?

Is it cool to sponsor a new bill, the "protection from gun violence for white women act." That actually protects everyone, male or female, regardless of if they are white, black, whatever? It's dumb to name a bill tat, right?

Just saying. Liberals(I include myself here), cause themselves arguments that are completely unnecessary for stupid non reasons like this.


This has been a top news story for six farking months holy shiat
 
2013-02-22 05:55:13 PM  

Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?


not illegal enough
 
2013-02-22 05:55:19 PM  
I think the new Not Quite So Much Violence Against Women, Please Act should be passed in its partiality.
 
2013-02-22 05:55:27 PM  
I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.
 
2013-02-22 05:55:37 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/


Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.
 
2013-02-22 05:56:12 PM  
Men. Against men.
 
2013-02-22 05:58:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!


So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally think federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!
 
2013-02-22 05:58:12 PM  

vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.


I hope the next person who says BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN is punched in the groin by Mike Tyson.
 
2013-02-22 05:58:15 PM  

BMulligan: I alone am best: Submitting to native American courts out.

Mind if I ask why?


Well, the biggest reason being the sixth amendment. There are a few other issues though, how are the judges appointed, juries selected? Is it an all indian court system or are non-natives allowed to participate in it?
 
2013-02-22 05:59:47 PM  
It's about not wanting to expand the jurisdiction of tribal courts. The Republican position makes sense insofar as one might want to avoid carving out one solitary exception to the general rule that tribal courts shall have no criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants. On the other hand, tribal courts have extensive jurisdiction over domestic relations matters even where one party is not Indian, and there are immense benefits in allowing the tribal courts to address all of the issues at play in a particular family, especially since the tribes have been in the vanguard of the so-called "wellness court" movement which seeks to treat the legal, medical, and behavioral issues of a broken family holistically.

I had heard that white men that went onto the reservation and beat/raped indian women were not prosecuted. I can see how that can happen with what you say here.
 
2013-02-22 05:59:49 PM  

vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.


As a person currently standing in a crowd of people I don't like, isn't violence against women already pro{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER
 
2013-02-22 06:00:49 PM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: Did they take out the redundant visa portion for illegal immigrants too?

I can't click on huffington post articles anymore.  What nutbag puts two autoplay videos on a site?


AOL.
 
2013-02-22 06:02:51 PM  
 
2013-02-22 06:03:41 PM  
Holy shiat you posted a PJ Media link in earnest ahh hahaha. Byeeeeeee.
 
2013-02-22 06:03:48 PM  
Days Since GOP Burned Themselves With Women Voters Forever: 0
 
2013-02-22 06:03:49 PM  

Jackson Herring: neongoats: Meh, I think it would have better served everyone by being named something something domestic violence act and protect all types, LGBT or straight men and women from domestic violence.

IT DOES farkING PROTECT ALL TYPES


Even comic sans?
 
2013-02-22 06:05:03 PM  

cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.


Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.
 
2013-02-22 06:08:26 PM  
What kind of maniac hates Native American lesbians?
 
2013-02-22 06:09:33 PM  
If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.
 
2013-02-22 06:11:38 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


I've been studying up history around the Fort Smith area because my mom lives there.  That's the True Grit town where Marshal Rooster Cougburn hailed from.

At one time, Oklahoma was the area where the United States dumped the Tribes.  By law, the Indians were not allowed to arrest or try any white man on the reservation.   This was actually changed by Congress and upheld by the Courts in 2004 .

Therefore, all the criminals would head out to the Indian Territory after committing crimes. Tribal lawmen couldn't touch them.

Marshals were paid to track down bad guys-which they would only see once they brought someone in.  The Marshals had to bring them in alive, otherwise they would have to  pay for the funeral expenses and fines.

So basically, at one time, you could do anything you wanted if you were a white person on tribal land.
 
2013-02-22 06:12:53 PM  

Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.


Jackson Herring: Men. Against men.



I'm going with the original wording, because it's more fun that way. The law has a special "Jackson Herring" clause, and I'm okay with that.
 
2013-02-22 06:14:40 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: So basically, at one time, you could do anything you wanted if you were a white person on tribal land.


You can pretty much still do that
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-h i gh-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2012 /05/23/us/native-americans-struggle-with-hi gh-rate-of-rape.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/06/171310945/south-dakota-tribes-accuse-s ta te-of-violating-indian-welfare-act

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/15/164688735/loophole-lets-toxic-oil-wate r- flow-over-indian-land
 
2013-02-22 06:17:03 PM  

vudutek: Spinelees little farktards.


In a nut(sack) shell...^^^^^^^ THIS
 
2013-02-22 06:21:21 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.

Jackson Herring: Men. Against men.


I'm going with the original wording, because it's more fun that way. The law has a special "Jackson Herring" clause, and I'm okay with that.


I am pretty vulnerable
 
2013-02-22 06:21:22 PM  

Elandriel: I'm reminded of alywa's post from another thread.  In literally every situation where there is a clear choice as to right or wrong, the GOP deliberately chooses the wrong side.


Why? Because fark you, that's why. Vote for me or I'll have to hurt you again.
 
2013-02-22 06:23:47 PM  

alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.


Well, for the purposes of the federal government. ENDA would apply to everyone, including actors like state and local governments, a fair number of which actually have fired people for nothing but sexual orientation.

And yeah, the Democratic Leadership seems to have just forgotten about ENDA. If I had to guess, I'd say that the holdup was the Republican obstruction in the Senate- with the way they've gummed the works, only so many things can get through even if you do have the votes, which is a big thing the modest filibuster reform we did get was intended to address. Give Harry Reid that play now, and he could execute. And if the Senate could pass it, which I believe they could with a decent outside push (Could be a nice focus for the next State of the Union), and by a decent bipartisan margin, it would be very hard politically for the House to stop it. Actually, it can and should take a similar course to VAWA. If the House doesn't pass it, it provides democrats a very nice bludgeon for 2014.
 
2013-02-22 06:25:53 PM  

lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.


And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.
 
2013-02-22 06:28:47 PM  

BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.


That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.
 
2013-02-22 06:30:28 PM  

alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.


cptjeff: alienated: cptjeff: Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Actually, all it would take is an Executive order .... as to why we dont have ENDA, I blame Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball big time.

Well, for the purposes of the federal government. ENDA would apply to everyone, including actors like state and local governments, a fair number of which actually have fired people for nothing but sexual orientation.

And yeah, the Democratic Leadership seems to have just forgotten about ENDA. If I had to guess, I'd say that the holdup was the Republican obstruction in the Senate- with the way they've gummed the works, only so many things can get through even if you do have the votes, which is a big thing the modest filibuster reform we did get was intended to address. Give Harry Reid that play now, and he could execute. And if the Senate could pass it, which I believe they could with a decent outside push (Could be a nice focus for the next State of the Union), and by a decent bipartisan margin, it would be very hard politically for the House to stop it. Actually, it can and should take a similar course to VAWA. If the House doesn't pass it, it provides democrats a very nice bludgeon for 2014.


If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.
 
2013-02-22 06:38:13 PM  

Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.


Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?
 
2013-02-22 06:42:18 PM  

Exception Collection: If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.


Didn't realize they had been leaving it out. Yeah, that definitely needs to be included.
 
2013-02-22 06:42:51 PM  

LectertheChef: Jackson Herring: GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/

Stop lying. The VAWA covers domestic violence against me.

Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?


Do they have a baseball bat?  Because that would hurt either way.
 
2013-02-22 06:42:57 PM  
Is anyone else not surprised that the GOP is ok with violence against minorities and gays?

I'm actually surprised they aren't against violence against women.
 
2013-02-22 06:45:49 PM  

LectertheChef: BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.

That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.


That makes perfect sense, which is why it will never fly in any legislature in this country.
 
2013-02-22 06:46:03 PM  

LectertheChef: BMulligan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.

When you say "non-member," do you mean non-Indian or do you mean Indians who are not members of the tribe served by the tribal court? Tribal courts already lack jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants - if the victim is also non-Indian then state courts have jurisdiction; if the victim is Indian, then jurisdiction lies in federal court pursuant to the General Crimes Act.

That's something that's never made any sense to me. You commit the crime on a reservation, the tribal courts should get to prosecute, unless it's something that goes way bigger, in which case it goes up to a federal district court. If an American is arrested for a crime in Mexico, they don't get to demand their trial be in the U.S. so the same rule should apply to reservations.


Legally, the tribes are dependent sovereigns. Their sovereignty survives only at the pleasure of Congress.
 
2013-02-22 06:48:57 PM  

Cpl.D: Is there even a plausible reason for them to do this, beyond aspirations of Bond villain-hood?


$. It needs funding. Because that's what the bill mostly does, provide (fund) programs that help victims and assist in the prosecution of perps.
 
2013-02-22 06:51:52 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Because that's what the bill mostly does, provide (fund) programs that help victims and assist in the prosecution of perps.


Yeah better cut that .000002% of the deficit.  Fiscal responsibility and all.

/not blaming you for making the point. blaming them for being pedantic asses
 
2013-02-22 06:53:16 PM  

Exception Collection: If they push the ENDA, I hope they leave trans rights in for once.


Even Eddie Munster , err, paul ryan said he would vote for enda, but the trans part had to go.
I guess we make him feel icky
 
2013-02-22 06:53:19 PM  

Snarfangel: vicioushobbit: I hope a meteorite strikes the next person to post "isn't violence against women already protected?" People who can't read more than a title shouldn't be allowed to comment on the bill.

As a person currently standing in a crowd of people I don't like, isn't violence against women already pro{#`%${%&`+'${`%&NO CARRIER


You made me lol.
 
2013-02-22 06:56:32 PM  

lennavan: demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!

So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally think

know federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!


I will use short words for you here:
The Feds can try these crimes.
Tribes can not when the guy/gal on trial is not part of the tribe.
These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.
Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.


*Empirical fact.

/They wait for a tribe member to die from the abuse, then they prosecute.
//This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.
///Got it? Good.
 
2013-02-22 07:00:52 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.


So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...
 
2013-02-22 07:02:22 PM  

KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.


Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to unsure in Socialism via technological advancement.
 
2013-02-22 07:03:19 PM  

cman: KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.

Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to usher in Socialism via technological advancement.


God damn autocorrect

Fixt
 
2013-02-22 07:04:35 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: demaL-demaL-yeH: Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.

So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...


Is this Fark Opposite Day, глупец?
 
2013-02-22 07:16:10 PM  

LectertheChef: lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.



Which is why it makes complete sense to make it a federal issue.

I think the problem I have with this whole deal is it seems like people who side with this part of VAWA think that the (R)'s are doing their very best to help criminals get away with crimes on tribal land.  That's not what it's about.  Tribal lands are still within US borders, they are considered "domestic, dependent nations."  This is about ensuring US citizens who go on to tribal lands are still afforded their rights as US Citizens.

The summary is linked, you should give it a read (focus on 903, page 12).  The way it reads to me you appeal to a federal court if:
1) Your constitutional rights are violated.
2) appeal a final judgement
3) appeal and seek habeas relief.

You all are making it sound like you can just get the trial moved no problem for no reason.  You can't.  You can only get it moved if you can demonstrate something.  This places the burden of proof on the defendant.  Unless as a defendant you can show your constitutional rights are violated, or enough proof to get your case overturned, they're just gonna deny your appeal.

As for people who are claiming things about the tribal prosecutors, the very next paragraph authorizes $5 million a year, for 5 years to assist tribes with this very specific issue.
 
2013-02-22 07:17:04 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.


So what you are saying is, the feds will not give a shiat, turn down the appeal and the tribal court ruling will stand?

WHAT AN OUTRAGE
 
2013-02-22 07:21:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: //This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.


No one is taking jurisdiction away from tribal courts.  You clearly have no idea what the new section says or does.  We will now spend dozens of posts going back and forth where you say what you totally believe to be true and I quote actual sections from the actual document demonstrating your imagination and reality don't match up.  In the end I'll make a few comments on your relative intelligence level, given your staunch opposition to facts, reality and evidence.  Those comments will likely get me a temporary vacation from Fark.com.

So how bout we just skip to the part where I call you an idiot because we both know nothing I post will ever convince you to actually read the document and familiarize yourself with reality.  You're far too dug in with your imagination.

Idiot.
 
2013-02-22 07:27:18 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?


Only if he says no.
 
2013-02-22 07:29:33 PM  

Crunch61: Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?

Only if he says no.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-22 07:31:04 PM  

BunkoSquad: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16

The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.


Also, a transvaginal ultrasound as well as a doctor's note indicating she is not menstruating, lest her female hormones cloud her judgment.
 
2013-02-22 07:45:38 PM  

Jetskimoo: Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.

[t2.gstatic.com image 259x194]


Me:  Heh, that's cool, someone got the MLP refere.....Wait a minute!!!!

BAH GAWD KING, MY WIFE'S ON FARK!   *runs*
 
2013-02-22 07:47:31 PM  

LectertheChef: lennavan: Grand_Moff_Joseph: give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.

Indirectly, it does.

The House bill retains the ability of tribes to prosecute non-member criminals in a tribal court.  However, they inserted additional language that allows the accused to have the trial moved to a non-reservation court if they feel that their "rights" are being violated.
Given the option to move a trial to a different court, where the tribal prosecution has little/no jurisdiction, and limited ability to present their case, what do you think the accused will do every single time?

I still don't get the issue.  When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

And the new court, more often than not, won't prosecute. They usually don't get it moved to a federal court, but a municipal court. Happens all the time. Someone commits a crime on a reservation, then flees. They make it off the reservation, they won't be prosecuted. The local sheriffs or whatever won't arrest the person because it didn't happen in their jurisdiction, the local courts won't extradite for whatever reason, so the person walks.


Ding!  that about sums it all up
 
2013-02-22 07:48:36 PM  
Boo, cman missed his political rave party!  XD
 
2013-02-22 07:51:26 PM  

cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?


Nobody gives a fark about you or your ideology, you narcissistic prick.

/troll more
//love you
 
2013-02-22 07:55:18 PM  

BunkoSquad: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16

The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.


How are they going to have an intact hymen after all the trans-vaginal ultrasounds the GOP will require for voting?
 
2013-02-22 08:06:55 PM  

fusillade762: BunkoSquad: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16

The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.

How are they going to have an intact hymen after all the trans-vaginal ultrasounds the GOP will require for voting?


Because Jesus.
 
2013-02-22 08:12:05 PM  

fusillade762: BunkoSquad: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Just like in 2012, the GOP is writing the DNC's ads for them.

Guess they didn't need any female votes in 2014/16

The GOP "voter ID" platform for the next election: women need 3 forms of photo ID (one topless), and either a notarized permission slip from their husband or a doctor's note certifying an intact hymen.

How are they going to have an intact hymen after all the trans-vaginal ultrasounds the GOP will require for voting?


Let me mansplain this to you, little missie.  Only whores try to vote.  If they cared about their hymens they would stay home working on their needlepoint like good girls.  Instead, they end up legs spread on the teacher's desk the first time they need a passing grade (trust me on this, I've seen documentaries on the subject).  So, they can hardly complain when they end up with an ultrasound probe confirming their eligibility to vote, and then reconfirming it after they vote.  And then again, six months later.
 
2013-02-22 08:15:52 PM  
I...ah...y-..ho...Nevermind.
 
2013-02-22 08:18:16 PM  

cman: cman: KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.

Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to usher in Socialism via technological advancement.

God damn autocorrect

Fixt


We are already treading on post-scarcity. Or rather, we are artificially creating scarcity of goods where none exits. We waste somewhere between 30% to half of all food made, either in production, distribution or at the point of consumption. Much of our energy scarcity is because we insist on using absurdly inefficient or antiquated means of transportation and living in suburbs. Also our distribution grid is a nightmare. Oh, and why haven't we gone full nuke yet? Most of our manufactured goods are coming out of China where ... people are cheaper to use to assemble than actually building a modern factory using robotics and automation. And the Chinese burn coal for those factories. So it goes.

Also, wealthy folks are trading in the market vast amounts of shares by the millisecond - it's crazy. But if our computational ability can already project curves in the stock market - why can't they project actual trends in the *real* market? The Soviets sucked at predicting demand, and the necessary production, but what if it could be done - by machine?

Finally: The Culture. Know it. Love it. Or not.
 
2013-02-22 08:34:43 PM  
I mean, lesbian on lesbian domestic violence is considered sexy by most men, why would we want to prevent it?  Besides, what's the worst they're really going to do to each other while their cats are watching?
 
2013-02-22 08:45:31 PM  

KiltedBastich: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Let me see if I understand what you mean, socialism facilitated by technology in order to avoid or curtail the kind of excesses, intrusions and abuses that traditional bureaucratic socialism fosters? Please elaborate if I am in error.

I am quite willing to discuss the idea, but I want to first make sure I understand what you are asking. No point in debating the topic if we end up misunderstanding each other's positions.


I think he just wants to get with technoviking.
 
2013-02-22 08:51:14 PM  
Ftfa: Specifically, the bill removes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program.

I'm not sure what to think about this. On the surface, it sounds sexist, but how can it be sexist to deny special funding for female victims of domestic violence... by other females? Where, in a heterosexual setting, the man is generally always assumed to be in the wrong, things aren't so simple in these cases. In fact, both women can claim to be "victims". Can somebody enlighten me on this?
 
2013-02-22 08:56:42 PM  
They want to leave violence against Native American women to the tribal courts. I see no problem with that. It increases the autonomy of the tribes, no?
 
2013-02-22 08:59:56 PM  
Oh, another VAWA thread...I wonder if there's a bunch of uninformed whiners babbling about mens' rights.

*scans thread*

...yup

Carry on, dipshiats
 
2013-02-22 09:00:35 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...


Reading comprehension fail. He means that rape and/or violence against a tribal member by a non-tribal member is not a big deal according to the Federal police. Which is depressing but completely true.
 
2013-02-22 09:07:52 PM  

HAMMERTOE: I'm not sure what to think about this. On the surface, it sounds sexist, but how can it be sexist to deny special funding for female victims of domestic violence... by other females? Where, in a heterosexual setting, the man is generally always assumed to be in the wrong, things aren't so simple in these cases. In fact, both women can claim to be "victims". Can somebody enlighten me on this?


Often both people are abusers and victims in a long term violent relationship, regardless of orientation and gender configurations.  No one denies this, but it pretty easy to determine who the most frequent or violent instigator is.  By removing the sexual orientation thing as an underserved population, you're also removing funding for programs that help homosexual men find treatment and resources.  Would you agree that men are an underserved population in DV cases? Homosexual men, doubly so.  Transgendered populations may be overlooked entirely.  It's not just women kicking around women.
 
2013-02-22 09:16:35 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Keep it up, Republicans.  Sure, it would be much better for America if you allowed your mentally challenged party to die with feeble little whimper, but, if you insist on going out in a spectacular fireball, I don't think anyone's going to stop you.


...I'm more interested in kicking them into their grave.  This sort of grease fire is the type that's apt to burn down the entire neighborhood.
 
2013-02-22 09:19:17 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Doktor_Zhivago: So can I rape you?  Since it's apparently not such a big deal...

Reading comprehension fail. He means that rape and/or violence against a tribal member by a non-tribal member is not a big deal according to the Federal police. Which is depressing but completely true.


Damnit.  I get drunk and start posting in politics and then I end up look like a retard.....

4.bp.blogspot.com
"I'm here to talk about rape"
 
2013-02-22 09:22:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: Looks as if they left stuff in for Native American women, subs.

Of course, they could be included under the rest of the bill if you wanted to strip the last bits of sovereingty away from the Native Americans. After all, what's one more treaty broken.


...if they're going to use that sovereignty to set up scam casinos and "financial" institutions (Western Scam Financial expects you to pay back $60,000 on a $10,000 loan), then they either need to be treated like a totally separate country or be treated as totally American.
 
2013-02-22 09:24:08 PM  
Yes, because when you're drafting legislation to protect women you must exclude a group that, by definition, can only contain women(lesbians) and a group of women that historically has been farked over for decades(native americans).
 
2013-02-22 09:33:32 PM  

IlGreven: ...if they're going to use that sovereignty to set up scam casinos and "financial" institutions (Western Scam Financial expects you to pay back $60,000 on a $10,000 loan), then they either need to be treated like a totally separate country or be treated as totally American.


They arguably sound more American than Americans. That's pure capitalism.
 
2013-02-22 09:40:32 PM  

TerminalEchoes: They want to leave violence against Native American women to the tribal courts. I see no problem with that. It increases the autonomy of the tribes, no?


It's always a good idea to read the thread before you comment. I'll repeat what I wrote above: tribal courts have very limited jurisdiction in criminal matters, and none at all when the alleged perpetrator is non-Indian. The proposed legislation would cede jurisdiction to the tribal courts in cases of domestic violence occurring in Indian country, even if the defendant is a non-Indian.
 
2013-02-22 09:45:23 PM  

Jeff_Reisberg: The "Violence against women act" is a horrible idea on the face of it.

including.... "protected groups" would just make it worse.


When you make inflammatory statements without so much as a speck of supporting argument, it hardly seems trolly at all.
 
2013-02-22 09:45:24 PM  
SSDD.
 
2013-02-22 09:56:06 PM  
Under the Senate bill, tribal courts would gain new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on reservations.


I don't know... a separate but equal judicial system doesn't sound right for some reason....
 
2013-02-22 10:11:42 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?


You'd be surprised to learn what's in that despicable bill.
 
2013-02-22 10:20:07 PM  
In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.
 
2013-02-22 10:30:07 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, another VAWA thread...I wonder if there's a bunch of uninformed whiners babbling about mens' rights.

*scans thread*

...yup

Carry on, dipshiats


Hey, I'm trying to get a popular uprising started to get ENDA through the Senate. If you join up, we could break out the torches and pitchforks!
 
2013-02-22 10:35:12 PM  

Jeff_Reisberg: The "Violence against women act" is a horrible idea on the face of it.

including.... "protected groups" would just make it worse.


Jeff_Reisberg: (favorite: "Women are interchangeable commodities")

I should probably change that to 'disgusting shiatstain', but that quote sums it up real damn well.
 
2013-02-22 10:35:37 PM  

utahraptor2: You'd be surprised to learn what's in that despicable bill.


Huh, now that's a blast from the past. It's been so long since the last time I saw this alt that I'd cleared it off my ignore list.
 
2013-02-22 10:39:00 PM  
What I want to know is, should I wait to pick up my ObamaPhone(TM)  and schedule an experimental Transgender Surgery using my ObamaCare trangender surgery voucher(TM) in order to enter into a dangerously violent lesbian relationship with a Native American until the next Congressional session, or should go ahead?
 
2013-02-22 10:42:00 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?


What's there to learn? Assault and battery is already a crime. This is just political grandstanding and a waste of taxpayers' money.
 
2013-02-22 10:42:27 PM  
So, Republicans are assholes.  Tell us something we don't already know.
 
2013-02-22 10:43:03 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Damnit.  I get drunk and start posting in politics and then I end up look like a retard.....


Hey, it's better to err on the side of being against rape than the Republicans' solution of erring on the side of being for rape. :P
 
2013-02-22 10:43:25 PM  

wademh: What I want to know is, should I wait to pick up my ObamaPhone(TM)  and schedule an experimental Transgender Surgery using my ObamaCare trangender surgery voucher(TM) in order to enter into a dangerously violent lesbian relationship with a Native American until the next Congressional session, or should go ahead?


I was wondering the same thing and hoping the GOP would do something to guide me.
 
2013-02-22 10:52:19 PM  

DrPainMD: Grand_Moff_Joseph: These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?

What's there to learn? Assault and battery is already a crime. This is just political grandstanding and a waste of taxpayers' money.


Then again, the bill is not about making things crimes so your point is about as useful as tits on a bull. It is about targeted crime prevention and victim assistance. So removing language that prevents groups from discriminating against some victims of assault because of sexual orientation would seem to be in antagonistic to the sentiments you project. After all, the point is to prevent people from treating some types of victims of assault as a separate class that can be discriminated against. You knew that, certainly, or else why would you have bothered to voice your opinion? But then your comment folds in on itself in a train-wreck of hypocrisy so who could really know what you mean.
 
2013-02-22 10:57:15 PM  

PsyLord: SSDD.


In a nutshell.

Or a nutsack.
 
2013-02-22 10:57:51 PM  

Cpl.D: You DO know that the "Obamaphones" program actually started before he took office.  Right?


Remember, "Obamacare" was the Heritage Foundation's idea and the "Obamaquester" was Boehner's idea.

Time machines and all that.
 
2013-02-22 11:07:48 PM  

Cpl.D: wademh: What I want to know is, should I wait to pick up my ObamaPhone(TM)  and schedule an experimental Transgender Surgery using my ObamaCare trangender surgery voucher(TM) in order to enter into a dangerously violent lesbian relationship with a Native American until the next Congressional session, or should go ahead?

You DO know that the "Obamaphones" program actually started before he took office.  Right?


My sincerest of apologies.  I was far too subtle for you to detect the thin veil of sarcasm. It's all my fault.
 
2013-02-22 11:34:00 PM  
AKA the "Dykes and squaws are only asking for it" amendment.
 
2013-02-22 11:41:17 PM  
I blame the stoopids, as usual.
 
2013-02-22 11:44:28 PM  
the comments on vawa threads have convinced me that i no longer need to worry about anything ever again.

homelessness and eventual death by societal neglect here i come!
 
2013-02-23 12:13:50 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-23 12:19:00 AM  

PsiChick: Jeff_Reisberg: (favorite: "Women are interchangeable commodities")

I should probably change that to 'disgusting shiatstain', but that quote sums it up real damn well.


I just have him labeled as "New troll" since he's only been here for less than a month. Still trying to figure out whose alt he is.
 
2013-02-23 12:28:52 AM  

fusillade762: PsiChick: Jeff_Reisberg: (favorite: "Women are interchangeable commodities")

I should probably change that to 'disgusting shiatstain', but that quote sums it up real damn well.

I just have him labeled as "New troll" since he's only been here for less than a month. Still trying to figure out whose alt he is.


I can't tell. He pisses me off, I know that, and TFA pisses me off anyway.

On the other hand, he might be great therapy. He's like a living caricature of a sexist to snap at. Might be fun.
 
2013-02-23 12:50:17 AM  
Not seeing a problem here.

Problem 1.) Having read my fair share of legislation, the average voter, let alone citizen will only get to the title of the bill and either mock it for being unnecessary and ignorant OR cheer it because "duh, who the hell supports violence against women?"  Change the name of the damn bill, you would destroy 80% of he objections.Problem 2.) Find a way to have some kind of parity when it comes to how police treat the situation.  A woman can beat the hell out of a man for hours but if he pushes her off him his ass is going to jail.  Not only are claims by men not taken seriously, self defense will almost certainly result in at least a night in jail, regardless o the circumstances.
 
2013-02-23 12:56:14 AM  
Republicans do deserve to lose over the dozens of brainless actions they have taken in the past few years.    I'm wondering if they will get to a point where they have less than 15% of the vote.  At that point Democrats will have a 1 party rule and may start fracturing over differing views.   So Republicans, please act a little more like your IQ is greater than 2 digits.
 
2013-02-23 12:58:39 AM  

jigger: I better get in some good old fashion woman beating before this thing passes.


No worries; you can still do it after, as long as the women are lesbians.

/dnrtfa
 
2013-02-23 01:18:23 AM  

wademh: What I want to know is, should I wait to pick up my ObamaPhone(TM)  and schedule an experimental Transgender Surgery using my ObamaCare trangender surgery voucher(TM) in order to enter into a dangerously violent lesbian relationship with a Native American until the next Congressional session, or should go ahead?


I think we all thought you already had the surgery -- you certainly act like you've got no balls.
 
2013-02-23 01:19:42 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


They did run a Mormon for President last year.  Check out what the Mormons believe about Native Americans.
 
2013-02-23 01:20:16 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Why Native Americans? I can see their hate for lesbians because Jesus totally forgot to specifically mention that his teachings applied to them when he said that they applied to everyone, but what's the deal with the Indians?


Funny, I read the House GOP objections to the Senate bill and they made sense. There is no reason to enumerate groups if the bill is directed at violence against women, or to allow tribal groups to discriminate against nontribal males without recourse to federal courts. In fact, the provision for native Americans would be unconstitutional if you changed it to apply to any ethnic group or one of the States.
 
2013-02-23 01:21:54 AM  

J Noble Daggett: DrPainMD: Grand_Moff_Joseph: These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?

What's there to learn? Assault and battery is already a crime. This is just political grandstanding and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Then again, the bill is not about making things crimes so your point is about as useful as tits on a bull. It is about targeted crime prevention and victim assistance. So removing language that prevents groups from discriminating against some victims of assault because of sexual orientation would seem to be in antagonistic to the sentiments you project. After all, the point is to prevent people from treating some types of victims of assault as a separate class that can be discriminated against. You knew that, certainly, or else why would you have bothered to voice your opinion? But then your comment folds in on itself in a train-wreck of hypocrisy so who could really know what you mean.


Hypocrisy? You need to get a dictionary.
 
2013-02-23 01:26:16 AM  

BMulligan: TerminalEchoes: They want to leave violence against Native American women to the tribal courts. I see no problem with that. It increases the autonomy of the tribes, no?

It's always a good idea to read the thread before you comment. I'll repeat what I wrote above: tribal courts have very limited jurisdiction in criminal matters, and none at all when the alleged perpetrator is non-Indian. The proposed legislation would cede jurisdiction to the tribal courts in cases of domestic violence occurring in Indian country, even if the defendant is a non-Indian.


Ahhh ok, got it. Thanks.
 
2013-02-23 01:28:40 AM  

DrPainMD: J Noble Daggett: DrPainMD: Grand_Moff_Joseph: These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?

What's there to learn? Assault and battery is already a crime. This is just political grandstanding and a waste of taxpayers' money.

Then again, the bill is not about making things crimes so your point is about as useful as tits on a bull. It is about targeted crime prevention and victim assistance. So removing language that prevents groups from discriminating against some victims of assault because of sexual orientation would seem to be in antagonistic to the sentiments you project. After all, the point is to prevent people from treating some types of victims of assault as a separate class that can be discriminated against. You knew that, certainly, or else why would you have bothered to voice your opinion? But then your comment folds in on itself in a train-wreck of hypocrisy so who could really know what you mean.

Hypocrisy? You need to get a dictionary.


What's so hypocritical about dictionaries?  It's the thesauruses that are hypocrites.  You know that thesauruses don't contain an entry for the word thesaurus?  True story.
 
2013-02-23 01:33:08 AM  
FTA: "The House GOP bill entirely leaves out provisions aimed at helping LGBT victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill removes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program."

The only thing that the government should be doing for crime victims is arresting, trying, and jailing the perps. This is a state function; there is no federal interest. Scrap the whole bill. Not to mention that it appears that these "grant programs" are targeted, violating the equal protection clause.
 
2013-02-23 01:43:02 AM  

cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.


People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.
 
2013-02-23 01:49:20 AM  

DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.


Do you also oppose the Civil Rights Act too?

Well, nice to know that you're a garden variety bigot, anyway. Have a nice evening.
 
2013-02-23 02:06:41 AM  

Descartes: Under the Senate bill, tribal courts would gain new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on reservations.


I don't know... a separate but equal judicial system doesn't sound right for some reason....


I can only imagine your outrage if there were separate court systems at the state and federal levels, or if each state had its own courts.

DrPainMD: FTA: "The House GOP bill entirely leaves out provisions aimed at helping LGBT victims of domestic violence. Specifically, the bill removes "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program."

The only thing that the government should be doing for crime victims is arresting, trying, and jailing the perps. This is a state function; there is no federal interest. Scrap the whole bill. Not to mention that it appears that these "grant programs" are targeted, violating the equal protection clause.


Oh, look. Someone who hasn't even the faintest understanding of the Equal Protection Clause. Imagine my surprise.
 
2013-02-23 02:07:23 AM  

cptjeff: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

Do you also oppose the Civil Rights Act too?

Well, nice to know that you're a garden variety bigot, anyway. Have a nice evening.


There's nothing bigoted about supporting every person's basic human right to freedom of association. Of course I oppose the Anti-Civil Rights Act... it violated basic human rights.
 
2013-02-23 02:15:08 AM  
So it's okay to beat up lesbians and native American women, right?
 
2013-02-23 02:34:12 AM  

r1chard3: So it's okay to beat up lesbians and native American women, right?


Especially if they're both, yup.
 
2013-02-23 02:34:23 AM  

fusillade762: PsiChick: Jeff_Reisberg: (favorite: "Women are interchangeable commodities")

I should probably change that to 'disgusting shiatstain', but that quote sums it up real damn well.

I just have him labeled as "New troll" since he's only been here for less than a month. Still trying to figure out whose alt he is.


Has he mentioned Marxists? Ask him if he's heard any cartridges hitting the floor yet.
 
2013-02-23 02:54:27 AM  

PsiChick: Jeff_Reisberg: The "Violence against women act" is a horrible idea on the face of it.

including.... "protected groups" would just make it worse.

Jeff_Reisberg: (favorite: "Women are interchangeable commodities")

I should probably change that to 'disgusting shiatstain', but that quote sums it up real damn well.


its a new troll account, and he has no game. No game.
 
2013-02-23 02:55:47 AM  

DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.


And F you too, ass . DIAF. I mean that
 
2013-02-23 03:02:44 AM  
LectertheChef:

Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?

As a big dude who has been socked in the arm by somebody half my size, you'd be surprised. Technique makes up for a lot when you're lacking size.

/ I legitimately had it coming, though.
// It hurt. ;.;
 
2013-02-23 03:45:57 AM  

bencoon: LectertheChef:

Even if it didn't cover men, consider the differing situations. What's going to hurt more, being hit by someone half your size, or twice your size?

As a big dude who has been socked in the arm by somebody half my size, you'd be surprised. Technique makes up for a lot when you're lacking size.

/ I legitimately had it coming, though.
// It hurt. ;.;


It's almost cute that you in any way associate being socked in the arm with domestic violence. Please never volunteer at a Hospital Emergency Room.  I will live a happier life reflecting upon your innocence.
 
2013-02-23 04:02:43 AM  

Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?


Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.


jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.


So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?
 
2013-02-23 04:20:27 AM  

skullkrusher: The Why Not Guy: skullkrusher: isn't not providing assistance to people because they're gay already prohibited by federal law?

No, it is not. Sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Some states have made it so, but most have not. Just for comparison, here are the federally protected classes:

Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Age
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Veteran Status
Genetic Information

being a farking ginger should be added to that list

/farking ginger


I think that is covered under the "Soulless Non-discrimination Act"
 
2013-02-23 04:28:44 AM  

Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?


are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.
 
2013-02-23 04:36:31 AM  

DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.


That is because you are an asshole.
 
2013-02-23 04:37:39 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.


Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.
 
2013-02-23 04:44:18 AM  

Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.

Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.


you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.
 
2013-02-23 04:44:57 AM  
Ceding authority over a non-native criminal defendant to a tribal court seems like a more systematic version of (for instance) excluding members of the defendant's race from a jury pool, and seems a similarly bad idea for similar reasons.


Also, in general tribal court can be more or less any process that the tribal government comes up with, whether it's modeled on US courts, on traditional dispute resolution, or on Sheriff Joe's Gung-Ho Guide to Witch Conviction. This isn't just about which locality's name is on the courthouse, it's about the kind of judicial process the defendant will face.

Sure, the instinct is to say "fark 'em, they're rapists," but not everyone accused is guilty and they should have a genuine chance to properly defend themselves before an impartial jury.

Should federal law enforcement and courts be required to do their job and take responsibility with regard to crimes on Native American land? Of course. Tossing it to tribal courts is the opposite of that.
 
2013-02-23 04:47:01 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.

Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.

you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.


Why?  "VAWA is sexist!" doesn't deserve an argument.  It should be patted on the head and sent upon its way on the short bus.
 
2013-02-23 04:50:34 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Ceding authority over a non-native criminal defendant to a tribal court seems like a more systematic version of (for instance) excluding members of the defendant's race from a jury pool, and seems a similarly bad idea for similar reasons.


Also, in general tribal court can be more or less any process that the tribal government comes up with, whether it's modeled on US courts, on traditional dispute resolution, or on Sheriff Joe's Gung-Ho Guide to Witch Conviction. This isn't just about which locality's name is on the courthouse, it's about the kind of judicial process the defendant will face.

Sure, the instinct is to say "fark 'em, they're rapists," but not everyone accused is guilty and they should have a genuine chance to properly defend themselves before an impartial jury.

Should federal law enforcement and courts be required to do their job and take responsibility with regard to crimes on Native American land? Of course. Tossing it to tribal courts is the opposite of that.


If you commit a crime in Native American territory against a Native American you should expect to face justice within tribal court.
What happens in Indian Casinos, stays in Indian Casinos.
 
2013-02-23 04:53:24 AM  

Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.

Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.

you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.

Why?  "VAWA is sexist!" doesn't deserve an argument.  It should be patted on the head and sent upon its way on the short bus.


you might want to tell that to men who are falsely accused by overzealous prosecutors or to the wives that use the automatic arrests of vawa as a weapon to gain an advantage in divorce court, or to the police departments who automatically arrest men regardless of the situation because he is bigger and taller. its not a good law and needs to be rewritten. check out the link i posted on page 3. it details some of the problems.
 
2013-02-23 04:56:12 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.

Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.

you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.

Why?  "VAWA is sexist!" doesn't deserve an argument.  It should be patted on the head and sent upon its way on the short bus.

you might want to tell that to men who are falsely accused by overzealous prosecutors or to the wives that use the automatic arrests of vawa as a weapon to gain an advantage in divorce court, or to the police departments who automatically arrest men regardless of the situation because he is bigger and taller. its not a good law and needs to be rewritten. check out the link i posted on page 3. it details some of the problems.


And don't forget how men can't force their fark-buddies to abort.  Jeeez!
 
2013-02-23 05:01:23 AM  

Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Sabyen91: GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.

Nope, you didn't wipe away the patina of ignorance people think you have.

you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.

Why?  "VAWA is sexist!" doesn't deserve an argument.  It should be patted on the head and sent upon its way on the short bus.

you might want to tell that to men who are falsely accused by overzealous prosecutors or to the wives that use the automatic arrests of vawa as a weapon to gain an advantage in divorce court, or to the police departments who automatically arrest men regardless of the situation because he is bigger and taller. its not a good law and needs to be rewritten. check out the link i posted on page 3. it details some of the problems.

And don't forget how men can't force their fark-buddies to abort.  Jeeez!


well i guess if youre not going to make an argument then i win. ima peace out. l8er.
 
2013-02-23 05:02:32 AM  
Consider native american villages and reservations foreign nations because that is exactly what they are.  That's why there are separate courts, CPS services, (sometimes) police, etc. If you commit a crime in Canada, you'll be tried in Canada. If you commit a crime on a reservation you should be tried on that reservation.  This bill helps to ensure that.
 
2013-02-23 05:07:28 AM  

gadian: Consider native american villages and reservations foreign nations because that is exactly what they are.  That's why there are separate courts, CPS services, (sometimes) police, etc. If you commit a crime in Canada, you'll be tried in Canada. If you commit a crime on a reservation you should be tried on that reservation.  This bill helps to ensure that.


No, that is not exactly what they are, as demonstrated by (among many other things) the fact that the United States Congress would have to authorize them to exercise jurisdiction in these cases.

"If you commit a crime on a reservation"... The problem is more salient in the "if you DON'T commit a crime on a reservation" scenario.
 
2013-02-23 05:19:40 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: No, that is not exactly what they are, as demonstrated by (among many other things) the fact that the United States Congress would have to authorize them to exercise jurisdiction in these cases.

"If you commit a crime on a reservation"... The problem is more salient in the "if you DON'T commit a crime on a reservation" scenario.


I'll refer  you to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.  Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands.
Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency."
 
2013-02-23 05:24:16 AM  
This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.
 
2013-02-23 05:37:05 AM  

gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.


How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.
 
2013-02-23 06:18:34 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.


You could always not commit crimes on the res, Whitey. They have enough troubles without you going out there to rape their women AGAIN.
 
2013-02-23 08:03:37 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
"Don't you think dykey injuns are just the worst?"
 
2013-02-23 08:17:32 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, another VAWA thread...I wonder if there's a bunch of uninformed whiners babbling about mens' rights.

*scans thread*

...yup

Carry on, dipshiats


Oh, look, another thread where you pretend to care about equal rights.
 
2013-02-23 08:44:15 AM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: [i1172.photobucket.com image 328x440]
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://deanesmay.com/2012/03/15/uncomfortable-truths-about-the-viole nc e-against-women-act/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with -t he-violence-against-women-act/254678/
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/02/19/vawa-is-just-bad-policy-period/


So what the graphs say is that some crazy women are dating sane men that don't hit them back? WHAT?!

Seriously. That's what the graph says. Some women hit their men, and their men don't hit back. In the instances where men hit their women, more of those women hit back then don't. Which is good. If your SO comes at you, defend yourself and GTFO.
 
2013-02-23 09:04:08 AM  
In the United States, where all are equal under the law, why do we require new laws to make assault against certain groups worse than against other groups.  Assault is already illegal, and the penalties and legal process should be the same whether the victim is a woman, gay, black, white, rich, poor, or purple.

If an American is subject to a crime, that should be the end of it.
 
2013-02-23 09:18:35 AM  

Ontos: In the United States, where all are equal under the law, why do we require new laws to make assault against certain groups worse than against other groups.  Assault is already illegal, and the penalties and legal process should be the same whether the victim is a woman, gay, black, white, rich, poor, or purple.

If an American is subject to a crime, that should be the end of it.


Hey, want to know how I know you didn't read the bill?

/spoiler: you're farking the wrong chicken
 
2013-02-23 09:39:29 AM  
It's very telling the things the GOP decides to take a stand on.

On one hand, I also agree with those who have said we should rename the bill as it's far broader than its name indicates...on the other hand, just mentioning women seems to send the GOP into a hate-filled froth and makes it more likely they'll keep losing elections at the national level, so I'm okay with keeping the name for now
 
2013-02-23 09:49:33 AM  

alienated: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

And F you too, ass . DIAF. I mean that


I don't doubt it. You obviously hate anybody who wants freedom and basic human rights.
 
2013-02-23 09:50:54 AM  

Sabyen91: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

That is because you are an asshole.


People who believe in the basic human right to freedom of association are assholes? I would say the opposite; those who don't believe in the basic human right to freedom of association are assholes.
 
2013-02-23 10:14:56 AM  

DrPainMD: alienated: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

And F you too, ass . DIAF. I mean that

I don't doubt it. You obviously hate anybody who wants freedom and basic human rights.


You don't have the right to discriminate. You do have the right to be an asshole though. So if you want to raise a stink because businesses don't have the right to discriminate against women, minorities, etc., you have the right to do so.

But it won't change anything. ;)
 
2013-02-23 11:37:18 AM  

DrPainMD: alienated: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

And F you too, ass . DIAF. I mean that

I don't doubt it. You obviously hate anybody who wants freedom and basic human rights.


You have yet to give an ounce of evidence that this bill would violate anyone's rights or freedoms.
 
2013-02-23 11:55:55 AM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: DrPainMD: alienated: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

And F you too, ass . DIAF. I mean that

I don't doubt it. You obviously hate anybody who wants freedom and basic human rights.

You have yet to give an ounce of evidence that this bill would violate anyone's rights or freedoms.


He thinks the Civil Rights Act violates his rights and freedoms.

I guess he misses the Jim Crow laws or something.
 
2013-02-23 01:01:36 PM  

cman: Capitalism will end when scarcity ends. However, right now, we are in a world of scarcity, which is what makes capitalism work for now. The idea is to usher in Socialism via technological advancement.

God damn autocorrect

Fixt


A reasonable presupposition and goal; it's much more in line with what Marx originally theorized than any of the attempts to shoehorn socialism and communism to date have been. I suggest however that whatever system replaces capitalism will need some way to reward striving for personal or societal betterment and encourage competition of ideas; some way of rewarding merit, in essence. Capitalism does that reasonably well, if not perfectly. Any successor system must needs do so also, else there is likely going to be those who propose artificially maintaining scarcity to maintain that competion - some of whom will mean to ensure their own wealth and power thereby. So while current capitalism based on scarcity of goods and services will not survive a post-scarcity economy, but that means we need to do something else to drive and engage human productivity.
 
2013-02-23 01:25:19 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: you should try creating an argument to support your position. offer evidence that vawa is not discriminatory against men or try to refute the arguments that say it is.


VAWA's text states it will 1) Offer funding for groups that have not previously been offered funding: Men, GLBTQ, and racial minorities; 2) Provide greater jurisdiction for Native American courts, since American courts have been refusing to prosecute abuse and rape cases; 3) Give a specific legal status to immigrants whose visas may be held hostage by their abuser.

So yeah, you could have just read the bill. Would've made your posts a whole lot shorter.
 
2013-02-23 01:56:00 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.


I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.
 
2013-02-23 02:49:40 PM  

DrPainMD: cptjeff: DrPainMD: cptjeff: Actually, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate against somebody for no reason other than that they're gay. Fire them from a job, stiff them on housing, whatever. They get no protection. Changing that has something like 90% support, but the biggest obstacle politically is that, like you, the vast majority of Americans think that that's already prohibited.

People don't need to be "protected" from people who don't want to associate with them.

Call your Senators and Representative and ask them to support ENDA- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

I just emailed mine and asked them to oppose the bill.

Do you also oppose the Civil Rights Act too?

Well, nice to know that you're a garden variety bigot, anyway. Have a nice evening.

There's nothing bigoted about supporting every person's basic human right to freedom of association. Of course I oppose the Anti-Civil Rights Act... it violated basic human rights.


Under Jim Crow laws, business owners were required to maintain segregation, whether they wanted to or not.  How was that not a violation of basic human rights?

"All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license."

Also, anyone who "printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and Negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both." How was that not a blatant violation of the First Amendment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_State

This battle was lost a long time ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States
 
2013-02-23 03:23:39 PM  

nmemkha: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.


He finds the idea of a white man being tried before an all-Indian jury horrifying, but trying an Indian before an all-white jury is just hunky dory.
 
2013-02-23 04:00:01 PM  

BMulligan: nmemkha: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.

He finds the idea of a white man being tried before an all-Indian jury horrifying, but trying an Indian before an all-white jury is just huonky dory.


I feel bad for that, but I couldn't resist.
 
2013-02-23 06:23:49 PM  

BMulligan: nmemkha: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

I bet blacks in the 60s agreed with you.

He finds the idea of a white man being tried before an all-Indian jury horrifying, but trying an Indian before an all-white jury is just hunky dory.


I actually started by pointing out that it is approximately the same problem as excluding members of the defendant's race from a criminal jury--much of the reasoning in something like Batson applies just as well to an entire racially-exclusionary court system. So, yeah, "blacks in the 60s" would've agreed with me, you disingenuous farks. It isn't a great idea to systematically and deliberately exclude the defendant's race from the judicial process.

Horrifying? More like unfair and unnecessary. Native Americans often face non-Native judges and juries, and I wouldn't say that's "just hunky dory" either. However, it is not mandatory, it is not because Native Americans are systematically excluded from local jury rolls and governmental positions and the poliical process and residence in the area and so on. (If it were, the defendant would have one hell of a case on appeal.)  It is essentially a statistical problem faced by any sufficiently small minority even with equal treatment, rather than a matter of ongoing race-based exclusion from the system. And more to the point of this discussion (if we can call attempts to put words in my mouth a "discussion"), it can't be solved by simply choosing not to put a stupid provision in a current bill.
 
2013-02-23 08:05:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: gadian: This bill will give Tribal courts the ability to have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by Non-tribal members for crimes committed on tribal land.  This is a good thing.  This is how it should be.

How it should be is: any person accused of a crime should have the opportunity to mount a defense before an impartial jury. Something which is by definition not available to an outsider in a racially-exclusive enclave.

You could always not commit crimes on the res, Whitey. They have enough troubles without you going out there to rape their women AGAIN.


Yeah but wearing those slutty deer skins, they're totally asking for it.
 
2013-02-23 08:18:55 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: cman: Politics indeed

/BTW, thinking of switching to techno-socialism as my political viewpoints. Any thoughts?

Cman: "You know what would really solve this problem?  A metric ton of UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ <the system, is down> UNTZ UNTZ UNTZ
Anyone else: "WTF, why would you do that?  you want more state control over..."
Cman: "I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my WUBS!
Anyone else: Wubs?  What in the hell are those?
Cman:"They're from my bass cannon!  Haven't you heard of...oh, never mind.  Crank the congressional bass to 11!!"

*DJ cuts in* and that was Vinyl Scratch's latest hit, 'All my Feels - the Democratic Underground Mix'.  Up next is the latest mash-up from DJ Skinnyhead, 'Counting to Potato'.


My only regret is that I have only one 'Funny' to give you.
 
2013-02-23 08:24:32 PM  

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Leishu: Buffett12: Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?

Funk Brothers: If women want equal rights, then they should start acting like men. Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, but there is no Violence Against Men? This is sexist and an injustice towards men.

jjorsett: In other words, the GOP doesn't believe in subdividing everyone into squabbling factions and encouraging them to nurse their grievances. If you're going to try to do something to address violence, make it apply to everybody.

So... I'd like to know. Are you advertising your complete and utter ignorance of the facts of this situation on accident, or are you genuinely that smugly proud of your lack of ability or willingness to either show the barest amount of reading comprehension or do the smallest amount of research before exhibiting your verbal diarrhea?

are you? there are several links in this thread that show why VAWA is sexist.


No. There are several links in this thread that show that people like to comment about VAWA without actually having read the act.
 
2013-02-23 09:35:54 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan: demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan:
I still don't get the issue. When the case gets moved, then the tribal prosecution simply turns over all of the documents, evidence and witness names to the federal prosecutor.

You're absolutely right!
What a nifty idea: This new law gives Federal prosecutors a strong incentive to do exactly the opposite of what they do when they get these cases now!

So if I gather what you're saying, we need tribunal jurisdiction of cases because you totally thinkknow federal prosecutors don't do their jobs.  I mean the current laws and all are fine but we should turn shiat over to tribunal courts because prosecutors don't do their jobs.

You're such a smart guy with such great ideas!

I will use short words for you here:
The Feds can try these crimes.
Tribes can not when the guy/gal on trial is not part of the tribe.
These crimes are not a big deal for the Feds.
Feds do not try them* 'cause they are "small" crimes.

*Empirical fact.

/They wait for a tribe member to die from the abuse, then they prosecute.
//This why the tribal courts must have jurisdiction for this kind of case.
///Got it? Good.


Speaking as someone who's testified for the prosecution in dozens of $50.00 fine cases in federal magistrate's courts, I'm gonna have to say that you're full of shiat.
 
2013-02-23 10:00:40 PM  

gadian: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: No, that is not exactly what they are, as demonstrated by (among many other things) the fact that the United States Congress would have to authorize them to exercise jurisdiction in these cases.

"If you commit a crime on a reservation"... The problem is more salient in the "if you DON'T commit a crime on a reservation" scenario.

I'll refer  you to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

"Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies.  Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands.
Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency."


Re: the words before your bolded bit

I'll refer you to the USSC decision Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, which is the state of the law today. So, their ability to enforce their laws is limited to tribal members.
 
Displayed 253 of 253 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report