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.

(Talking Points Memo)   House finally passes Violence Against Women Act, despite 62% opposition from the GOP   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 166
    More: Cool, Violence Against Women Act, violence against women, The Final Passage, GOP, domestic violence  
•       •       •

2126 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Feb 2013 at 2:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-28 01:13:49 PM  
Some conservative advocates - including the Heritage Foundation and RedState editor Erick Erickson - saw the procedural move as a blatant surrender, and threatened to target Republicans who voted in favor of the plan with the expanded provisions.

That would be pathetic, if it wasn't so sad.  Fark these people.
 
2013-02-28 01:17:30 PM  
At least every single woman voted for it, that's something.
 
2013-02-28 01:19:29 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Some conservative advocates - including the Heritage Foundation and RedState editor Erick Erickson - saw the procedural move as a blatant surrender, and threatened to target Republicans who voted in favor of the plan with the expanded provisions.

That would be pathetic, if it wasn't so sad.  Fark these people.


I've learned how to see it as both pathetic AND sad.

Republicans have gone from mustache-twirling cartoon villain to Eeyore with a chemical burn on his balls.
 
2013-02-28 01:20:53 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Eeyore


Hey now, Eeyor's farking adorable and loveable.
 
2013-02-28 01:22:53 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Vodka Zombie: Eeyore

Hey now, Eeyor's farking adorable and loveable.


Yeah.  But, he'd be pretty sad and pathetic if his giblets were scalded off, wouldn't he?
 
2013-02-28 01:26:35 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: At least every single woman voted for it, that's something.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1651051/vawa-passes/
 
2013-02-28 01:29:54 PM  

Vodka Zombie: CapeFearCadaver: Vodka Zombie: Eeyore

Hey now, Eeyor's farking adorable and loveable.

Yeah.  But, he'd be pretty sad and pathetic if his giblets were scalded off, wouldn't he?


Those people are past sad, it's scary. Pathetic, but I can't pity anyone who has no remorse. If their balls got scalded off they'd somehow find a way to punish their constituents with whatever remaining power they hold.

Eeyore on the other hand, he'd probably just go: Ho-hum, guess I wasn't gonna have any babies anyways...
becauseitreallyispersonal.files.wordpress.com
/GIS for Eeyore gave me a serious case of the squee's
 
2013-02-28 01:30:10 PM  
Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?
 
2013-02-28 01:33:04 PM  

Blues_X: CapeFearCadaver: At least every single woman voted for it, that's something.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1651051/vawa-passes/


An earlier TP said it was all male republicans... trying to find it.
 
2013-02-28 01:34:20 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?


Not yet, but there was one who got his ass handed to him in one of the other earlier threads.  It was kind of cute how he thought this only protected women.

I like to think that after getting smacked down, he stepped away from his computer and walked into the sun to see the world with a whole new sense of wonder.
 
2013-02-28 01:37:45 PM  
I find it interesting that so many laws now need to be "renewed."  Why does everything need a Sunset Clause in order to pass these days?

Are they expecting that, at some future date, we will feel differently about violence against women?
 
2013-02-28 01:53:09 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?


They'll be here soon. I think they're still defending the Bloomberg cover.
 
2013-02-28 01:54:57 PM  
While this is obviously an act that needs to be passed, I hate how people use the name on bills to coerce people to vote for things.

How can you not vote for the "Violence Against Women Act"?  What are you, for violence against women?

How can you not vote for the "PATRIOT Act"?  What are you, unpatriotic?
 
2013-02-28 01:58:18 PM  

Thoguh: While this is obviously an act that needs to be passed, I hate how people use the name on bills to coerce people to vote for things.

How can you not vote for the "Violence Against Women Act"?  What are you, for violence against women?

How can you not vote for the "PATRIOT Act"?  What are you, unpatriotic?


I get what you're saying, however this bill was first written in 1994 when there simply wasn't a discussion of victims of DV being anything other than women.
 
2013-02-28 01:58:30 PM  
I'm convinced that the GOP is now being controlled by either Sacha Baron Cohen or Zombie  Andy Kaufman and they're just farking with us.
 
2013-02-28 02:01:22 PM  
100 years from now historians will still be amazed at how the Republicans have managed to piss all over their legacy ever since the beginning of the Southern Strategy
 
2013-02-28 02:05:37 PM  

Thoguh: While this is obviously an act that needs to be passed, I hate how people use the name on bills to coerce people to vote for things.

How can you not vote for the "Violence Against Women Act"?  What are you, for violence against women?

How can you not vote for the "PATRIOT Act"?  What are you, unpatriotic?


Took the words right out of my mouth. Nothing against the act itself, it does seem sensible, but they need less suggestive names. How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?
 
2013-02-28 02:05:44 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Lionel Mandrake: Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?

They'll be here soon. I think they're still defending the Bloomberg cover.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-28 02:06:21 PM  

NuttierThanEver: 100 years from now historians will still be amazed at how the Republicans have managed to piss all over their legacy ever since the beginning of the Southern Strategy


That's a talking point that the Republicans always use, that "the Republicans freed the slaves and headed the civil rights movement" or whatever, ignoring that the two parties' poles reversed since then. So they can take credit for the "progressive" things their party did in the past that everyone now agrees with while using "progressive" as a negative epithet today.
 
2013-02-28 02:08:41 PM  

CapeFearCadaver: Blues_X: CapeFearCadaver: At least every single woman voted for it, that's something.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1651051/vawa-passes/

An earlier TP said it was all male republicans... trying to find it.


They claimed that, but there wasn't a list. They said every Democrat voted for it and every woman voted for it. The opposition was entirely white males.
 
2013-02-28 02:09:37 PM  

nekom: How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?


The VAWA act, when it was first passed in 1994, only covered women but has since been amended to cover everyone. Why do people have to explain this in literally every one of the dozens of threads about this subject?
 
2013-02-28 02:10:13 PM  
That's right, the Violence Against Women Act Act.
 
2013-02-28 02:11:38 PM  

Jackson Herring: nekom: How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?

The VAWA act, when it was first passed in 1994, only covered women but has since been amended to cover everyone. Why do people have to explain this in literally every one of the dozens of threads about this subject?


I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.
 
2013-02-28 02:14:05 PM  

nekom: Jackson Herring: nekom: How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?

The VAWA act, when it was first passed in 1994, only covered women but has since been amended to cover everyone. Why do people have to explain this in literally every one of the dozens of threads about this subject?

I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.


You mean like the "Fluffy Bunnies are Cute Act" that authorizes decapitation for jaywalking?
 
2013-02-28 02:16:02 PM  

nekom: I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.


The bill wasn't farking named deliberately named to be some sort of gotcha. It accurately describes the original content of the act, which has been expanded upon in subsequent farking years.
 
2013-02-28 02:16:22 PM  

Thoguh: While this is obviously an act that needs to be passed, I hate how people use the name on bills to coerce people to vote for things.

How can you not vote for the "Violence Against Women Act"?  What are you, for violence against women?

How can you not vote for the "PATRIOT Act"?  What are you, unpatriotic?


I wouldn't say that the Violence Against Women Act is on par with the Patriot Act there. I see this comparison brought up a lot, but VAWA's name actually addresses what's within the bill. I don't get why it gets singled out, when most bills' names oversimplify their content.

Most bills, whether you agree with them or not, you can ask "What does this bill do?" and get an answer using the words in the title, like, "It attempts to make Healthcare more Affordable, among other things.", or "It attempts to give Relief to states affected by Hurricane Sandy, among other things."or "It attempts to Defend the current definition of Marriage from being changed, among other things." or in this case, "It attempts to address Violence Against Women, among other things". The valid complaint about this system is the "among other things", but that is present in every single bill passed through Congress.

On the other hand, asking "What does this bill do?" and getting "PATRIOTISM. Among other things." doesn't even address the main thrust of what the bill is trying to accomplish.
 
2013-02-28 02:21:16 PM  

Jackson Herring: nekom: I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.

The bill wasn't farking named deliberately named to be some sort of gotcha. It accurately describes the original content of the act, which has been expanded upon in subsequent farking years.


I don't know if it was or wasn't, I was 14 in 1994 and couldn't have cared less about politics. I just think names like that are cheap. "Domestic Violence act" or something a bit more neutral would have made more sense.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:26 PM  
I am extremely concerned that the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act does not actually include protection for venomous snakes.
 
2013-02-28 02:23:57 PM  

Mugato: I'm convinced that the GOP is now being controlled by either Sacha Baron Cohen or Zombie  Andy Kaufman and they're just farking with us.


THIS.
 
2013-02-28 02:24:27 PM  

nekom: I don't know if it was or wasn't, I was 14 in 1994 and couldn't have cared less about politics.


Well good thing I just informed you, like I've had to do for people in every single thread on this topic in the last six months!
 
2013-02-28 02:34:24 PM  

Jackson Herring: nekom: I don't know if it was or wasn't, I was 14 in 1994 and couldn't have cared less about politics.

Well good thing I just informed you, like I've had to do for people in every single thread on this topic in the last six months!


Hey I don't have some agenda here. You may be right, I don't know what goes on inside lawmakers heads. I just personally dislike legislative names like that.
 
2013-02-28 02:37:09 PM  

nekom: Jackson Herring: nekom: How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?

The VAWA act, when it was first passed in 1994, only covered women but has since been amended to cover everyone. Why do people have to explain this in literally every one of the dozens of threads about this subject?

I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.


FFS. Guess what, the bill was called that because it used to just cover women. What, do we need to have in the name of the bill what ISN'T in the bill so nobody gets confused about what might be in the bill?
 
2013-02-28 02:41:02 PM  

nekom: You may be right, I don't know what goes on inside lawmakers heads. I just personally dislike legislative names like that.


1. I AM right. It's not some murky matter of hidden intent on the side of the lawmakers, look up what the original 1994 VAWA covered and how it came about.

2. The name of the bill is not disingenuous. The bill originally covered domestic violence against women, and has since been expanded. There has never been any opposition the other times it has come up for renewal, and renaming the act would probably entail writing an entirely new bill and starting from scratch again.
 
2013-02-28 02:42:50 PM  
 
2013-02-28 02:43:07 PM  

Jackson Herring: I am extremely concerned that the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act does not actually include protection for venomous snakes.


Wait till you get a load of the Funding American Rapid Transit By Any Means Available bill.
 
2013-02-28 02:56:29 PM  
That means that there is hope for the other 98% of them (Republican Math)
 
2013-02-28 02:57:31 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Some conservative advocates - including the Heritage Foundation and RedState editor Erick Erickson - saw the procedural move as a blatant surrender, and threatened to target Republicans who voted in favor of the plan with the expanded provisions.

That would be pathetic, if it wasn't so sad.  Fark these people.


They are just selling a product, it is their consumers who are vile.
 
2013-02-28 02:57:41 PM  
I guess that whole War on Women thing that didn't really exist is a factor after all.
 
2013-02-28 02:57:57 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?


This is sexist, and discriminates against men who are abused more than women bang bang one bang.
 
2013-02-28 02:58:11 PM  

GAT_00: FFS. Guess what, the bill was called that because it used to just cover women. What, do we need to have in the name of the bill what ISN'T in the bill so nobody gets confused about what might be in the bill?


The Violence Against Nice Guys In Fedoras Act
 
2013-02-28 03:00:52 PM  
Really interesting analysis of this from Jed Lewison:


I'm sure there are some folks who think Boehner deserves credit for being willing to let legislation move forward despite opposition from his own conference, but while they've at least got a superficially decent point, this trend says less about Boehner's flexibility than it does about the dysfunctional nature of House Republicans. Clearly, many House Republicans areNew York Times

The thing that isn't entirely clear is this: Why are Republicans voting no and hoping yes? Is it because they secretly disagree with their political base, but are too afraid to cast votes that might cost them a primary? Or do they agree with their base, but are too afraid to block legislation that they fear could cost them a majority? Or is it both?

Whatever the case, House Republicans aren't being honest about what they stand for. They're lying to somebody-or everybody. And when it comes to actually enacting must-pass legislation, the party that has reliably been willing to stand up and move the country forward is the Democratic Party. That's why Boehner has had to turn to Democrats three times in two months to get critical legislation passed.

I suppose that's better than nothing at all, but one of the key messages in 2014 should be that keeping Republicans in control of the House is recipe for more of this kind of dysfunction. The country would be much better off with Democrats in control of the House. After all, they're already doing much of the work.
 
2013-02-28 03:01:57 PM  
Crap, copy/paste fail. Trying again:


I'm sure there are some folks who think Boehner deserves credit for being willing to let legislation move forward despite opposition from his own conference, but while they've at least got a superficially decent point, this trend says less about Boehner's flexibility than it does about the dysfunctional nature of House Republicans. Clearly, many House Republicans are voting no   on legislation that they secretly hope passes. Indeed, as Ashley Parker of the  New York Timesreported, some House Republicans are even saying this on the record.

The thing that isn't entirely clear is this: Why are Republicans voting no and hoping yes? Is it because they secretly disagree with their political base, but are too afraid to cast votes that might cost them a primary? Or do they agree with their base, but are too afraid to block legislation that they fear could cost them a majority? Or is it both?

Whatever the case, House Republicans aren't being honest about what they stand for. They're lying to somebody-or everybody. And when it comes to actually enacting must-pass legislation, the party that has reliably been willing to stand up and move the country forward is the Democratic Party. That's why Boehner has had to turn to Democrats three times in two months to get critical legislation passed.

I suppose that's better than nothing at all, but one of the key messages in 2014 should be that keeping Republicans in control of the House is recipe for more of this kind of dysfunction. The country would be much better off with Democrats in control of the House. After all, they're already doing much of the work.
 
2013-02-28 03:02:15 PM  
Again, the act as it currently exists is essentially an appropriations/funding bill, elements actually altering how domestic violence is handled legally were stripped from it by the supreme court long ago.

While personally I'd argue that the programs being funded are worthwhile, voting against this doesn't make you in favor of violence against women any more than voting for PATRIOT makes you a patriot that cares about the constitution.  Names of legislation don't necessarily describe what they really do.

//Many GOP members are mysogynist, but this isn't evidence of it.  The evidence would be in the trying to remove the BC provisions of the ACA.
 
2013-02-28 03:02:31 PM  

CarnySaur: Lionel Mandrake: Have the "this is sexist and discriminates against men who are abused more than women!!1!" idiots shown up yet?

This is sexist, and discriminates against men who are abused more than women bang bang one bang.


Finally!  In an hour or two it'll be nothing but those idiots
 
2013-02-28 03:02:54 PM  
is there more than one Bachmann? because the only one i am familiar with voted against the act.
 
2013-02-28 03:03:07 PM  

GAT_00: nekom: Jackson Herring: nekom: How long before we see a "End to violence against African American women and free puppy dog act" that's actually something about national parks, with a $1M rider for the perverted arts attached?

The VAWA act, when it was first passed in 1994, only covered women but has since been amended to cover everyone. Why do people have to explain this in literally every one of the dozens of threads about this subject?

I know it doesn't cover just women, but that's not the point. The point is they shouldn't be able to name acts something so suggestive. What if I sponsor "The AWESOME act of 2013", but the bill itself is just horrible. Who would vote against the AWESOME act??? This isn't anything specific to this act, but in general.

FFS. Guess what, the bill was called that because it used to just cover women. What, do we need to have in the name of the bill what ISN'T in the bill so nobody gets confused about what might be in the bill?



If you call the bill anything other than Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R. 3355, you're worse than Hitler.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:21 PM  

Thoguh: While this is obviously an act that needs to be passed, I hate how people use the name on bills to coerce people to vote for things.

How can you not vote for the "Violence Against Women Act"?  What are you, for violence against women?

How can you not vote for the "PATRIOT Act"?  What are you, unpatriotic?


This. The objections to the law, right or wrong, had nothing to do with violence against women.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:22 PM  
Colorado's delegation voted 6-1 in favor, nice. Farking Lamborn.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:26 PM  

Bladel: I find it interesting that so many laws now need to be "renewed."  Why does everything need a Sunset Clause in order to pass these days?

Are they expecting that, at some future date, we will feel differently about violence against women?


Well, apparently, the House Republicans do feel differently about this one, this time . . . whereas it passed nearly unanimously previous times.

I don't mind sunset clauses.  It's hard to get rid of old laws that don't make sense any more.  Maybe no-brainer laws like this one don't need a sunset clause, but the fight that just occurred over renewal says otherwise (I has a sad).  On the bright side, the House Republicans allowed themselves to get totally owned on this one, reinforcing their anti-women stance in the eyes of the nation, while creating more internal conflict in their party.
 
2013-02-28 03:09:36 PM  

Jackson Herring: GAT_00: FFS. Guess what, the bill was called that because it used to just cover women. What, do we need to have in the name of the bill what ISN'T in the bill so nobody gets confused about what might be in the bill?

The Violence Against Nice Guys In Fedoras Act


The This Is Not The Defense Bill Act
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report