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 257
    More: Asinine, House GOP, Violence Against Women Act, GOP, LGBT, reauthorization, United States House Committee on Rules, House Majority Leader, domestic violence  
•       •       •

3447 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2013 at 4:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 07:22:01 AM

wademh: 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.


Just checkin'.  The problem with politics the way they are now in this country is that Poe's Law has become dominant.
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report