Why Is The GOP Against Reauthorizing The VAWA?

[Dick Tuck]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

What the heck is the VAWA? Define the thing, then we can talk about it

 

[Dick Tuck]

What the heck is the VAWA? Define the thing, then we can talk about it

I'll type it real slow for you. It's the Violence Against Women Act. First passed in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005.

 

[kwc57]

Wouldn't violence against women be a local problem better handled at the local and state level? I know it's a strange concept for those who need the federal gubmint to wipe their asses for them, but you really should try it.

 

[GuyPinestra]

What the heck is the VAWA? Define the thing, then we can talk about it

I'll type it real slow for you. It's the Violence Against Women Act. First passed in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005.

What does it cost? What does it do? The Title is all well and good, but what's in it?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Wouldn't violence against women be a local problem better handled at the local and state level? I know it's a strange concept for those who need the federal gubmint to wipe their asses for them, but you really should try it.

Many small communities don't have the resources for shelters for battered women or training of police and parole officers on how best to deal with it. Certainly congress believed it important enough to pass and reauthorize in 1994, 2000, and 2005.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

 

[Dick Tuck]

What the heck is the VAWA? Define the thing, then we can talk about it

I'll type it real slow for you. It's the Violence Against Women Act. First passed in 1994, and reauthorized in 2000 and 2005.

What does it cost? What does it do? The Title is all well and good, but what's in it?

S.1925: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

 

[Dick Tuck]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

My concern here is the smooth operation of the board. I am letting you know how to keep your threads out of the rubber room.

 

[Conservative]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

that all requires two things... intelligence, and effort.

 

[Conservative]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.

in order to start a thread, you need to post links proving any assertions made. You made assertions, and failed to provide links supporting your claim.

it isn't rocket science. If you SAY something, link to something that SUPPORTS it. It's not our job to research YOUR comments to see if they are true or not. It's YOUR job to offer proof of your statements.

 

[g5000]

The VAWA was originally passed in 1994 and has remained in effect through both Republican Democrat Congresses. On March 12, 2012, the Judiciary Committee voted on the reauthorization of S. 1925 the Violence Against Women Act, introduced by Senator Leahy. Unlike the last reauthorization of VAWA in 2006, which passed by unanimous consent, S. 1925 contained provisions that had never appeared in past authorizations of VAWA. For these reasons, Sen. Grassley, the Ranking Member, offered a Republican substitute amendment to the Leahy bill. Republicans voted for the Grassley substitute Democrats for the new Leahy version. The new Leahy version passed through committee, but Democrats chose not to schedule it for a vote.

DEMOCRATS TRY NEW WAR ON WOMEN TACTIC

 

[Dick Tuck]

My concern here is the smooth operation of the board. I am letting you know how to keep your threads out of the rubber room.

No problem. I just assume that people on a political board would know that 41 Republicans are blocking what was always a bill with bipartisan support, and would know what the Violence Against Women Act was all about.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Well, that is a good start.

You might google up a few articles to demonstrate your assertion that there is widespread opposition (there is) which also, interestingly enough, explains the various apples of discord the Democrats have tossed into the bill. Such as giving Indian tribes the right to prosecute non tribal members, granting rights under the act to illegals, and giving protections to Lesbians from acts by their partners.


Usually, when you start a thread like this, you should include enough basic information so that people know what you are going on about, plus a couple quotes from the people involved as to their reasoning.

I found pages of stuff where the issues were discussed. You could have included at least one republican quote from at least one of them.

Rhetorical questions about weird acronyms don't help move the debate forward. In order for there to be a useful discussion, you need facts and clear statements.


The next time you pull a stunt like this, a rhetorical question about an obscure issue with no facts anywhere, it goes to the rubber room.

So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.

in order to start a thread, you need to post links proving any assertions made. You made assertions, and failed to provide links supporting your claim.

it isn't rocket science. If you SAY something, link to something that SUPPORTS it. It's not our job to research YOUR comments to see if they are true or not. It's YOUR job to offer proof of your statements.

Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.

 

[Conservative]

So in order for me to start a thread, I have to educate people who don't know about it? I did my research before I started it. Perhaps you ought to do yours before you opine.

in order to start a thread, you need to post links proving any assertions made. You made assertions, and failed to provide links supporting your claim.

it isn't rocket science. If you SAY something, link to something that SUPPORTS it. It's not our job to research YOUR comments to see if they are true or not. It's YOUR job to offer proof of your statements.

Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.

are you really too stupid to understand the point?

YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.

It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.

It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.

Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???

 

[Dick Tuck]

in order to start a thread, you need to post links proving any assertions made. You made assertions, and failed to provide links supporting your claim.

it isn't rocket science. If you SAY something, link to something that SUPPORTS it. It's not our job to research YOUR comments to see if they are true or not. It's YOUR job to offer proof of your statements.

Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.

are you really too stupid to understand the point?

YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.

It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.

It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.

Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???

Read the OP simpleton. I made no claims. I was asking for opinion on why the GOP suddenly decided to block the Violence Against Women Reauthorization.

 

[g5000]

My concern here is the smooth operation of the board. I am letting you know how to keep your threads out of the rubber room.

No problem. I just assume that people on a political board would know that 41 Republicans are blocking what was always a bill with bipartisan support, and would know what the Violence Against Women Act was all about.

And by assuming, you made an ass of yourself.

It is NOT the same bill as always. See my previous post.

Learn from this experience.

 

[Conservative]

Google VAWA, and you'll pull up 598,000 hits, with at least the top 100 dealing with the current news event.

are you really too stupid to understand the point?

YOU made claims. It is not MY job to research them. It's YOURS.

It's common practice on the board that when you make a claim, you post a link to a source backing up what you say, and not just say 'Trust me' or 'google it to see I'm right'.

It is immaterial that we can also research your claims. We should not HAVE to, unless we take exception to them or the source posted... in which case we WILL research the claims.

Again, are you simple too stupid to understand this basic board principle???

Read the OP simpleton. I made no claims. I was asking for opinion on why the GOP suddenly decided to block the Violence Against Women Reauthorization.

without providing proof they HAD done so, dipshit.

Simply stating 'the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.', isn't PROOF. It's a statement.

 

[g5000]

What's their excuse now? Do they not believe that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Is this just another part of their war against women? In the past, the VAWA was a law that had bipartisan support. Even with 59 singatories, including Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL), Scott Brown (MA) and Mike Crapo (ID), the GOP is blocking the vote for reauthorization.

You assume we would all know that the blazes you are talking about, but you don't know why it is being opposed this time.

What's wrong with this picture?