Are Republicans "Pro Domestic Violence"?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You called it! There are 7 types of Republicans. Si is...

Extremely Idiotic Republicans:
These Republicans are Republicans because they think it’s cool. They have a Republican in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what they’re talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

It’s hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They don’t know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think that Republicans are fiscally conservative because they say that they are, and call anyone that doesn’t agree with them sheep. They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100% blind to facts.

What to Remember when debating them:

No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think that your opinion isn’t credible. Instead of trying to argue with them try explaining Algebra to your dog. I’m sure it will be much more productive.

Si, want a link? Fuck off. Google 7 Types of Republican Idiots if you want to see the first 6.

I'm with ya man. There's been studies done about the DNA of republicans and democrats. Democrats have been found to have a strand that causes them to die upon saying a lie, so no living democrat is capable of lying. Also democrats have been found to have bigger brains, how they haven't been able to outsmart republicans into always having full control of gov't is a mystery a room full of democrat scientists are trying to solve.

Oh and stop shaking your first at your computer monitor, it makes the screen harder to read.

I can't lie.

I believe everything I say, PERIOD.

I don't think a lot of these Republicans are "lying" either. I think they believe the stuff they say.

But when they pretend what that Hillary Rosen said was worse than what Ted said, or try to say what Ted said wasn't a threat, is that a lie or being intellectual dishonesty? What's the difference? Or when they deny that Global Warming is being caused by man. Do they really believe that because even Newt admitted that is a lie to protect the corporations from having to pay for going green. But Republicans pretend that isn't true or just ignore that fact. Is that lying to ignore that fact? Or is it just not being honest?

And notice we all distanced ourselves from Rosen. The right embraces Ted and Hank.

What Rosen said and What Ted said are very different.

Ted went off on the president hinting that Obama's reelectoin would make him do something illegal/stupid.

Rosen went of fon Ann Romney saying that she has no right to talk about women's issues because she is a stay at home mom with a wealthy husband.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You called it! There are 7 types of Republicans. Si is...

Extremely Idiotic Republicans:
These Republicans are Republicans because they think it’s cool. They have a Republican in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what they’re talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

It’s hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They don’t know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think that Republicans are fiscally conservative because they say that they are, and call anyone that doesn’t agree with them sheep. They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100% blind to facts.

What to Remember when debating them:

No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think that your opinion isn’t credible. Instead of trying to argue with them try explaining Algebra to your dog. I’m sure it will be much more productive.

Si, want a link? Fuck off. Google 7 Types of Republican Idiots if you want to see the first 6.

I'm with ya man. There's been studies done about the DNA of republicans and democrats. Democrats have been found to have a strand that causes them to die upon saying a lie, so no living democrat is capable of lying. Also democrats have been found to have bigger brains, how they haven't been able to outsmart republicans into always having full control of gov't is a mystery a room full of democrat scientists are trying to solve.

Oh and stop shaking your first at your computer monitor, it makes the screen harder to read.

I can't lie.

I believe everything I say, PERIOD.

I don't think a lot of these Republicans are "lying" either. I think they believe the stuff they say.

But when they pretend what that Hillary Rosen said was worse than what Ted said, or try to say what Ted said wasn't a threat, is that a lie or being intellectual dishonesty? What's the difference? Or when they deny that Global Warming is being caused by man. Do they really believe that because even Newt admitted that is a lie to protect the corporations from having to pay for going green. But Republicans pretend that isn't true or just ignore that fact. Is that lying to ignore that fact? Or is it just not being honest?

And notice we all distanced ourselves from Rosen. The right embraces Ted and Hank.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWIErMHvacY&feature=youtube_gdata_player]The Chipmunks - While Strolling Through The Park One Day - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr.Drock]

You called it! There are 7 types of Republicans. Si is...

Extremely Idiotic Republicans:
These Republicans are Republicans because they think it’s cool. They have a Republican in one of the other groups listed, so they think they know what they’re talking about. They have terrible spelling and grammar but they expect you to believe whatever they say because they are saying it to you.

The reason why this type of Republican is an idiot:

It’s hard to tell if they ever made it past the 4th grade. Most of their posts are illegible. They don’t know anything about their position other than what they have heard their friends say. They think that Republicans are fiscally conservative because they say that they are, and call anyone that doesn’t agree with them sheep. They ignore all historical information that is contradictory to what they say. They are 100% blind to facts.

What to Remember when debating them:

No amount of facts or logic will ever convince them that their buddies are wrong. You could be a college professor and they will still think that your opinion isn’t credible. Instead of trying to argue with them try explaining Algebra to your dog. I’m sure it will be much more productive.

Si, want a link? Fuck off. Google 7 Types of Republican Idiots if you want to see the first 6.

I'm with ya man. There's been studies done about the DNA of republicans and democrats. Democrats have been found to have a strand that causes them to die upon saying a lie, so no living democrat is capable of lying. Also democrats have been found to have bigger brains, how they haven't been able to outsmart republicans into always having full control of gov't is a mystery a room full of democrat scientists are trying to solve.

Oh and stop shaking your first at your computer monitor, it makes the screen harder to read.

I can't lie.

I believe everything I say, PERIOD.

I don't think a lot of these Republicans are "lying" either. I think they believe the stuff they say.

But when they pretend what that Hillary Rosen said was worse than what Ted said, or try to say what Ted said wasn't a threat, is that a lie or being intellectual dishonesty? What's the difference? Or when they deny that Global Warming is being caused by man. Do they really believe that because even Newt admitted that is a lie to protect the corporations from having to pay for going green. But Republicans pretend that isn't true or just ignore that fact. Is that lying to ignore that fact? Or is it just not being honest?

And notice we all distanced ourselves from Rosen. The right embraces Ted and Hank.

Well don't worry I've hacked into the USMB database and gotten every user's name and forced them to respond in a poll i conducted. Literally 100% of them said they believed every word you've ever said on here and they know your pure, unfiltered honesty is why you're a democrat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

Wahhhh
Wahhhhh
Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Fuck off

 

[catzmeow]

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

If this label is removed, cases will be charged as Assault/Battery, and prosecutors will ensure that consensual living partners will have options for their own protection, in the same way that two roommates would be handled.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resultingin a traumatic condition is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

Quick question, why is a woman who's a stranger to the person conducting the assault less of victim than a wife who gets punched in the face?

Please provide a detailed response as to why someone who assaults a woman should get a lighter penalty because he's not married to her.

Thanks in advance

 

[catzmeow]

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

The penalties for felony ggravated battery are more strict than the DV code you've linked. Prosecutors have a range of charges to select from. A battery which "inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition" (phrase drawn from DV penal code) would generally be charged as felony aggravated battery. Sentencing for aggravated battery is 2-4 years in prison, $10k fine, and a possible strike on the record.

Probation officers, if they are informed of the nature of the crime, can also recommend additional probation terms during sentencing.

It appears to me that there is no reason for these to be charged as separate charges (DV versus agg. battery). DV can be handled just as effectively using the existing assault/battery laws (as I stated above).

Thanks for playing, though.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Is Rdean a fucking retard?

Truly you're an ass. The point made in the OP is a valid one - that's self evident. CA's Penal code section, for example (273.5(a) states:

"Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a
fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment."

6211 of the Family Code: "6211. "Domestic violence" is abuse perpetrated against any of the
following persons:
(a) A spouse or former spouse.
(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.
(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child
of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3
(commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).
(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action
under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that
the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.
(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within
the second degree.

Catzmeow wrote: "An assault/battery in a non-DV case remains an assault/battery, and victims continue to have a variety of means at their disposal to address these criminal acts. Removing the LABEL of DV from an assault doesn't mean that the assault will not be charged or prosecuted. Nor does it remove victims' services from the equation."

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

The penalties for aggravated battery are more strict than the DV code you've linked. Prosecutors have a range of charges to select from. A battery which "inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition" (phrase drawn from DV penal code) would be charged as aggravated battery. Sentencing for aggravated battery is 2-4 years in prison, $10k fine, and a strike on the record.

It appears to me that there is no reason for these to be charged as separate charges (DV versus agg. battery).

Thanks for playing, though.

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

 

[Claudette]

Is Rdean a fucking retard?

You got it in one sentence.

He's gotta be at least a retard. No one in their right mind is in favor of domestic violence.

Yup. He's a batshit crazy lefty retard.

I'll bet Chris jumps in any second now to back him up.

No doubt about it.

 

[catzmeow]

Quick question, why is a woman who's a stranger to the person conducting the assault less of victim than a wife who gets punched in the face?

Please provide a detailed response as to why someone who assaults a woman should get a lighter penalty because he's not married to her.

He doesn't. If it's aggravated battery, it's aggravated battery, and within reason, the prosecutor will pursue the charge that results in the greatest penalty, though this may ultimately be plea-bargained.

 

[catzmeow]

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

But...I'm a woman.

 

[Jarhead]

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

But...I'm a woman.

A woman who hates women.

SO then you are against the lesbian lifestyle as well i assume?

Im not. I actually find it hot!

 

[Dr.Drock]

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

But...I'm a woman.

I know you are .

But on this thread, you using facts and quoting the law equals you hate women.

You woman-hating lizard lipped hoola hoop eyed feather headed dootybrain.

 

[catzmeow]

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

But...I'm a woman.

A woman who hates women.

SO then you are against the lesbian lifestyle as well i assume?

Im not. I actually find it hot!

While I personally suffer from a crippling fear of vaginas, I in no way would oppose other women seeking them out and enjoying them. I'm in favor of freedom.

 

[catzmeow]

You have to read the rules for each individual thread.

The rules in this thread clearly state you can only speak on hysterics and emotion, speaking intellectually is forbidden.

For example.) Shut your cheesehole you woman hater.

But...I'm a woman.

I know you are .

But on this thread, you using facts and quoting the law equals you hate women.

You woman-hating lizard lipped hoola hoop eyed feather headed dootybrain.

Let me really blow your mind: I'm not a Republican, either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Assault and Battery and DV are seperate crimes in California. Any person convicted of DV and placed on probation has terms and conditions which far exceed those imposed on one convicted of battery alone. See CA PC Sec. 1203.097 and 6211 of the Family Code (Link to CA Codes: Find California Code )

If this label is removed, cases will be charged as Assault/Battery, and prosecutors will ensure that consensual living partners will have options for their own protection, in the same way that two roommates would be handled.

With all respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Prosecutors come into court with stacks and stacks of cases - as do public defenders. Deals are made, pleas are entered and the next case is called. 1203.097 details specific terms and conditions, future court reviews, anger management classes, protective orders and even requires probation officers to evaluate the safety of the victim. A DV conviction is much different than a conviction for battery.

CrusaderFrank proved once again what a complete fool he is.

 

[Dr.Drock]

But...I'm a woman.

I know you are .

But on this thread, you using facts and quoting the law equals you hate women.

You woman-hating lizard lipped hoola hoop eyed feather headed dootybrain.

Let me really blow your mind: I'm not a Republican, either.

A woman, who isn't a republican, not taking sides with liberals on an issue?


HEATHEN!!!!!!!!

 

[catzmeow]

With all respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Prosecutors come into court with stacks and stacks of cases - as do public defenders. Deals are made, pleas are entered and the next case is called. 1203.097 details specific terms and conditions, future court reviews, anger management classes, protective orders and even requires probation officers to evaluate the safety of the victim. A DV conviction is much different than a conviction for battery.

With all due respect, I've probably worked with cops and prosecutors as closely (if not more closely) than you have. The amendment in question applies to North Carolina, and my points are accurate, with regard to North Carolina laws. California laws are irrelevant to the discussion. Even in California, victims would have recourse, even if the DV laws were stripped from the books.

Perhaps you should read the OP before posting.

But, we all know this thread isn't REALLY about DV. It's about attempting to villify NC Republicans.

Do I support this amendment? OF COURSE NOT. Am I going to engage in panicky hyperbole to combat it? OF COURSE NOT.

You should consider using that strategy.

 

[Mr.Nick]

“Our amendment is much broader. It says you can’t recognize or validate these relationships at all.”

In the absence of any legal recognition, unmarried couples — whether gay or straight — could conceivably see courts invalidate their domestic violence protections. Eichner says it would depend on how judges read the amendment, but a broad interpretation is certainly possible.

“What we have here is untested language that would need to be interpreted by the courts,” Eichner said. “On its face, it would be interpreted with far-reaching effects.”

In August, he likened gay marriage to both incest and polygamy.

Between 2005 and 2007, Ohio’s courts heard cases wherein some defense attorneys successfully argued that domestic violence protections could not apply to unmarried couples.

North Carolina marriage amendment will ban civil unions for gay and straight couples

LOVE the USMB Republicans:

We don't hate the gays. I guess just their party does.

The burning question? Whose next?

Who will Republicans screw over next?

Mitt is in North Carolina. What does Mr. Etch a Sketch have to say? Or is this his first "etch a sketch" moment?

Hey dumb fuck assault is assault.........

If you assault another individual regardless of the relationship YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.....