Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-12-2012, 07:11 AM  
Direckshun Direckshun is offline
Black for Palestine
 
Direckshun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $7187
Why is the GOP resisting renewal of the Violence Against Women Act?

Reportedly, the GOP wants to carve out exceptions against women in samesex couples, American Indians, and, of course, illegal immigrants.

Somebody explain this rationale to me in a way that doesn't make the GOP look bafflingly insane.

You guys understand the GOP just got destroyed in November by the women vote, right?

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/e...1.html?refer=y

Editorial: Renew and expand support for women
Violence Against Women Act provides needed safeguards.
Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
Updated: December 11, 2012 - 9:51 PM

In 1994, during the Clinton administration, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That landmark legislation authorized funds for rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, the establishment of a national hot line for victims, and measures such as education programs for judges, law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

The law remains critical in battling domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, of which women remain the overwhelming targets. In the past, Congress readily supported reauthorization of the act, and even expanded its scope to address the needs of disabled women, older women and teens.

But this year's reauthorization has been stalled over the U.S. Senate's effort to better protect Native Americans, undocumented immigrants and LGBT abuse victims. The Senate bill was passed with bipartisan support in April, but the House version, adopted in May, eliminated the additional protections at the insistence of the GOP's right wing.

It's simply indefensible to exclude victims because of their immigration status, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. Under no circumstances should America become a place that tolerates women being raped or beaten unless they're heterosexual U.S. citizens, not of Native American heritage.

Undocumented women risk deportation if they report abuse, which their abusers exploit. Nonheterosexual women are often turned away from domestic violence shelters and denied orders of protection. And Native American women face higher rates of sexual assault, mostly at the hands of non-Indians.

Tribal courts have no authority to prosecute non-Indians. As a result, victims have few resources for protection, and abusers often are never held accountable. The Senate's bill grants limited jurisdiction -- a constitutional sticking point for many Republicans, such as Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, who noted that "the Bill of Rights does not apply in tribal courts." But a smart, new proposal offered by two Republicans, including Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, would give defendants the option to move the case to federal courts.

"There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime and not be subjected to local jurisdiction," Cole told Indian Country Today Media Network. "Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It's not right."

Nationally, an average of three women are murdered every day by a current or former partner. An estimated 2.3 people are raped or physically assaulted by someone they know. Besides the human toll, the health care, employment, legal and other costs are staggering.

The Violence Against Women Act has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Vice President Joe Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, introduced the original bill, which garnered 225 cosponsors, including vocal support from Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat.

You'd think the GOP opposition would eagerly rally behind female crime victims, given the backlash faced from remarks that cost two Senate candidates their elections. In defending staunch opposition to abortion, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin spoke of "legitimate rape" and Indiana's Richard Mourdock insisted that pregnancies that result from rape were intended by God.

Lawmakers have had the common sense to put aside differences to back this act for the past 18 years. It's critical that they do so again before year's end so that the legislative process won't have to start all over again. Women's lives and safety are on the line.
Posts: 44,212
Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.Direckshun is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 05:45 PM   #151
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $5000
Here ya go, Drek. You friggin imbecile:

Violence Against Women?



By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | February 5th, 2013 at 08:02 AM | 6


Liberals have always held a bifurcated view of women and their need for government protection. On the one hand, they seek to use the boot of government to obliterate every last inherent difference between the genders, even in the most physical manifestations. On the other hand, they use big government programs to grant superfluous rights to women, as if they needed government to protect them from men.

This week, the Senate will debate reauthorization of the misleadingly named Violence Against Women Act (S.47). All but 14 Republicans agreed to proceed with debate on the bill. What is this ridiculous bill nicknamed VAWA?

Under our criminal justice system, states and local governments are vested with the police power to deal with crimes committed against its residents. Those powers are just as robust, whether the crime has been committed against a man, a woman, and everything in between (except for the unborn, thanks to Roe v. Wade). In 1994, the Clinton Administration waded into the criminal justice system by imposing a federal prosecutorial and investigative regime to combat domestic violence. This new layer of government, housed in the Department of Justice, focused on redistributing judicial power to female victims and undermining equal protection, due process and the presumption of innocence for men – all to satisfy the cult of group victimhood. Moreover, the billions spent on sundry social programs have shown no success in reducing incidents of domestic violence, while precluding state and local governments from dealing with the problem as reflected by the reality in their areas of jurisdiction.

The new reauthorization includes the following added perks:
■The last reauthorization expanded the programs and protections to the elderly and children. This one would expand “coverage” to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. After all, in a liberal marriage you have to have some way of identifying the husband and the wife. Nonetheless, this will force shelters for battered women to service …well, some other individuals as well.
■It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”
■It expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of an Indian reservation.
■It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic abuse.

The irony of this entire debate is that it comes on the heels of the Pentagon’s announcement that women will be placed in direct ground combat, opening the door for them to serve in the most violent jobs, including infantry and special forces. So at the same time they pursue a gender-neutral society – one which will forever change the way women are viewed in violent situations – liberals are seeking to expand the role of the federal government in an ineffective program to protect women.

That just about sums up the enigma of modern feminism.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/05/v...against-women/
Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 06:39 PM   #152
go bowe go bowe is offline
bye bye bo...
 
go bowe's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: independence
Casino cash: $5451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski View Post
Here ya go, Drek. You friggin imbecile:

Violence Against Women?



By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | February 5th, 2013 at 08:02 AM | 6


Liberals have always held a bifurcated view of women and their need for government protection. On the one hand, they seek to use the boot of government to obliterate every last inherent difference between the genders, even in the most physical manifestations. On the other hand, they use big government programs to grant superfluous rights to women, as if they needed government to protect them from men.

This week, the Senate will debate reauthorization of the misleadingly named Violence Against Women Act (S.47). All but 14 Republicans agreed to proceed with debate on the bill. What is this ridiculous bill nicknamed VAWA?

Under our criminal justice system, states and local governments are vested with the police power to deal with crimes committed against its residents. Those powers are just as robust, whether the crime has been committed against a man, a woman, and everything in between (except for the unborn, thanks to Roe v. Wade). In 1994, the Clinton Administration waded into the criminal justice system by imposing a federal prosecutorial and investigative regime to combat domestic violence. This new layer of government, housed in the Department of Justice, focused on redistributing judicial power to female victims and undermining equal protection, due process and the presumption of innocence for men – all to satisfy the cult of group victimhood. Moreover, the billions spent on sundry social programs have shown no success in reducing incidents of domestic violence, while precluding state and local governments from dealing with the problem as reflected by the reality in their areas of jurisdiction.

The new reauthorization includes the following added perks:
■The last reauthorization expanded the programs and protections to the elderly and children. This one would expand “coverage” to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. After all, in a liberal marriage you have to have some way of identifying the husband and the wife. Nonetheless, this will force shelters for battered women to service …well, some other individuals as well.
■It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”
■It expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of an Indian reservation.
■It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic abuse.

The irony of this entire debate is that it comes on the heels of the Pentagon’s announcement that women will be placed in direct ground combat, opening the door for them to serve in the most violent jobs, including infantry and special forces. So at the same time they pursue a gender-neutral society – one which will forever change the way women are viewed in violent situations – liberals are seeking to expand the role of the federal government in an ineffective program to protect women.

That just about sums up the enigma of modern feminism.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/05/v...against-women/
i hadn't read anything from red state before this, thanks comrade...

now i know not to take them seriously and waste time reading it...

thanks, comrade crapski, thank you very much...
Posts: 30,013
go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.go bowe 's phone was tapped by Scott Pioli.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2013, 06:42 PM   #153
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by go bowe View Post
i hadn't read anything from red state before this, thanks comrade...

now i know not to take them seriously and waste time reading it...

thanks, comrade crapski, thank you very much...
Gee, a moonbat attacking the source. Man, I've never seen this tactic employed before, how will I respond?

This is all true:

■The last reauthorization expanded the programs and protections to the elderly and children. This one would expand “coverage” to men, homosexuals, transgendered individuals and prisoners. After all, in a liberal marriage you have to have some way of identifying the husband and the wife. Nonetheless, this will force shelters for battered women to service …well, some other individuals as well.
■It expands the definition of domestic violence to include causing “emotional distress” or using “unpleasant speech.”
■It expands the law’s reach to give tribal Indian authorities jurisdiction over non-Indians accused of domestic violence within the borders of an Indian reservation.
■It would grant more visas to illegal immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic abuse.

Those are all facts.

So what next, moonbat, what next?
Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:45 PM   #154
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $8143
Thank You Republicans

Quote:
President Obama has signed into law the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It passed the House with the help of 85 Republicans. Thanks Republican defenders of the Constitution. Thanks a lot. And since Republicans have controlled the House since January of 2010, they are responsible for every bill that Obama has signed since then. I note also that the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized in 2005--with a Republican president and Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Thank you Republicans.


Laurence Vance
I happen to agree with Vance. Find out who these 85 are and make this more known.
__________________
Posts: 57,397
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:47 PM   #155
Comrade Crapski Comrade Crapski is offline
Banned
 

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sea of Green 23.4°
Casino cash: $5000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
I happen to agree with Vance. Find out who these 85 are and make this more known.
This is playing right into Dear Leader's hands. He wants the house and this is his ticket.

He want's to finish what nancy and harry started in 2007, and perform the coup de grace on this country that he hates.
Posts: 3,833
Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.Comrade Crapski is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 06:50 PM   #156
BucEyedPea BucEyedPea is offline
BucPatriot
 
BucEyedPea's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: None of your business
Casino cash: $8143
I'll look up what Rs voted for this tommorrow. Gotta digest my Boeuf Bourguignon and Crepe desert with my wine and my keeper. I am too tipsy to bother.
__________________
Posts: 57,397
BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.BucEyedPea is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.