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 114
    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»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-22 03:10:32 PM
7 votes:
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 04:34:05 PM
6 votes:

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 01:30:12 PM
6 votes:
Actually they stripped out coverage for same-sex couples of both genders.
2013-02-22 06:28:47 PM
5 votes:

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 04:54:36 PM
5 votes:
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 03:42:20 PM
5 votes:

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 01:27:02 PM
5 votes:
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 05:17:27 PM
4 votes:

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 05:16:54 PM
4 votes:

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 04:42:48 PM
4 votes:

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 04:02:02 PM
4 votes:
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 01:24:10 PM
4 votes:
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 10:52:19 PM
3 votes:

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 10:35:12 PM
3 votes:

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 06:56:32 PM
3 votes:

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 06:11:38 PM
3 votes:

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 05:59:47 PM
3 votes:
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 05:41:56 PM
3 votes:
Look, children! This is what human pieces of shiat look like!
2013-02-22 04:46:59 PM
3 votes:
These people have the gall to call themselves Christian
2013-02-22 04:46:53 PM
3 votes:

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 03:07:01 PM
3 votes:

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?
2013-02-23 06:18:34 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-22 11:07:48 PM
2 votes:

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 09:40:32 PM
2 votes:

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 08:56:14 PM
2 votes:

HAMMERTOE: Can somebody enlighten me on this?


Sure.  The republicans are doing exactly what you'd expect a group that has been bought out by evangelical extremists who value profit over scruples.
2013-02-22 06:46:03 PM
2 votes:

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 06:30:28 PM
2 votes:

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 06:23:47 PM
2 votes:

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 06:21:22 PM
2 votes:

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 06:14:40 PM
2 votes:

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 06:02:51 PM
2 votes:
2013-02-22 05:58:12 PM
2 votes:

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 05:55:27 PM
2 votes:
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 05:28:59 PM
2 votes:

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 05:22:22 PM
2 votes:

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 04:49:48 PM
2 votes:

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 04:39:56 PM
2 votes:

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 04:36:59 PM
2 votes:
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 03:31:41 PM
2 votes:

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 03:09:06 PM
2 votes:
As a male, I'm proud to share my second-class status with the LGBT community.
2013-02-22 01:29:06 PM
2 votes:
All dicks, all the time.
2013-02-22 01:23:23 PM
2 votes:
"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 01:17:44 PM
2 votes:
These sick farks NEVER LEARN, do they?
2013-02-23 08:24:32 PM
1 votes:

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 03:23:39 PM
1 votes:

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 01:25:19 PM
1 votes:

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 09:18:35 AM
1 votes:

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 05:24:16 AM
1 votes:
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 05:02:32 AM
1 votes:
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 04:53:24 AM
1 votes:

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 04:50:34 AM
1 votes:

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 04:37:39 AM
1 votes:

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 04:36:31 AM
1 votes:

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 04:02:43 AM
1 votes:

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 03:45:57 AM
1 votes:

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 01:49:20 AM
1 votes:

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 01:19:42 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-22 10:57:51 PM
1 votes:

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 10:43:25 PM
1 votes:

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 10:39:00 PM
1 votes:
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 09:45:23 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:32 PM
1 votes:

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 09:16:35 PM
1 votes:

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 09:00:35 PM
1 votes:

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 08:59:56 PM
1 votes:
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 07:55:18 PM
1 votes:

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 07:51:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:45:38 PM
1 votes:

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 07:16:10 PM
1 votes:

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 07:02:22 PM
1 votes:

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 06:51:52 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:42:57 PM
1 votes:
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 06:25:53 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:00 PM
1 votes:
Is there even a plausible reason for them to do this, beyond aspirations of Bond villain-hood?
2013-02-22 06:12:53 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:03 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:12 PM
1 votes:
Men. Against men.
2013-02-22 05:55:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:24 PM
1 votes:

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


Mind if I ask why?
2013-02-22 05:37:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:37:13 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:05 PM
1 votes:
But don't you dare call them bigots.

/farking bigots
2013-02-22 05:31:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:25:04 PM
1 votes:
Isn't it already illegal to be violent towards women?
2013-02-22 05:22:12 PM
1 votes:

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 05:22:10 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:47 PM
1 votes:

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 05:12:39 PM
1 votes:
2013-02-22 05:04:28 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:02:54 PM
1 votes:

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


Nope.
2013-02-22 05:01:14 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:05 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:56:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:41 PM
1 votes:
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 04:54:39 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:02 PM
1 votes:

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

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


FTFY
2013-02-22 04:51:08 PM
1 votes:
THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY.

"Violence against dykes and squaws is OK by us."
2013-02-22 04:48:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:44:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:24 PM
1 votes:
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 03:17:29 PM
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: women


the VAWA covers both genders

reality exists
2013-02-22 02:16:15 PM
1 votes:
It should only cover legitimate violence.
2013-02-22 01:28:02 PM
1 votes:
Those who cannot learn from history....
2013-02-22 01:27:38 PM
1 votes:

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 01:22:42 PM
1 votes:
At this point, can't Pelosi try to get a discharge petition on the Senate passed bill?
2013-02-22 01:20:57 PM
1 votes:
Or, in short, House Republicans vote against bipartisan Violence Against Women Act again.
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report