Why Is The GOP Against Reauthorizing The VAWA?

[daveman]

If you can't keep up, go play with mal in the flame zone.

He has kept up. I know you believe Dick's claims because you're stupid and gullible, but normal people need real proof.

I find it hilarious that the same libtards morons who bitch and moan at conservative posters if they do not link to proof of a claim, seem to think that it is okay for them not to have to follow the same protocols they insist other do.

Bunch of hypocritical douche-nozzles.

It's a symptom of their magical thinking. If a fellow leftist says it, it HAS to be true.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The best part is - domestic violence is domestic violence and throwing 1.6 billion dollars at it doesn't change anything other than the amount we have in our wallets.

It gets even better considering (according to idiot progressives) woman are equal to men (which of course they are) yet laws like this redundant pork bullshit single them out.

If a woman beats a man it's assault.

If a man beats a woman it's assault.

1.6 billion wont change that...

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

b/c it's a waste of fucking time and money you fucking moran!

Moron.

 

[JoeB131]

With the implementation of the VAWA, violence DID drop.

Uniform Crime Reports [United States]: Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004

Senator's Leahy and Crapo seek to expand the bill to addresses the needs of gay victims, immigrant victims, foreign brides, and Native women on tribal lands...because they are not being addressed.

]

Oooooh, just what we need, More "Special Victims".

How about this. We treat all crime the same.

I'm not seeing the big deal in your graph. It looks like the number of victims killed by their partners is declining. It's just declining faster for men than it is for women.

 

[Synthaholic]

Domestic violence is down 53% since the law was first passed. I guess that spending money for an outcome like that is a waste in your eyes. Sorry, but I can't support your pro-wife beater position.

dick tuckeduphisass is quite thoroughly dishonest.

Wrong lard ass, it's true. Domestic violence is down 53% since passage of the bill. I've provided likes to the source up-thread. Also, are you aware that 40% of all homicides against women are committed by their domestic partners? I guess I'll have to put you down in the pro-wife beater column.

He hasn't been able to see his wife in years.


Oh, wait . . that's his dick. My mistake.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think DickSuck is a masochist... Lord knows he's been beat half to death in THIS thread...

I agree, but not with facts.

It's not the wingnut way.

 

[Synthaholic]

So, what are the objections to the expansions?

Enumerated in the 15 pages of the thread...

Must have missed them in all the personal attacks on Mr. Tuck. Try summing 'em up.

It's all they've got.

 

[Conservative]

I think DickSuck is a masochist... Lord knows he's been beat half to death in THIS thread...

I agree, but not with facts.

It's not the wingnut way.

He has utterly refused to prove the 53% decline figured he declares is a fact.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who forced you to post in this thread, all ignorant-like?

You talk to yourself a lot.

Can you point to one of your posts in this thread that has any factual substance, rather than mindless insults and photoshops?


I will not wait, because you will not produce any.

 

[Conservative]

Who forced you to post in this thread, all ignorant-like?

You talk to yourself a lot.

Can you point to one of your posts in this thread that has any factual substance, rather than mindless insults and photoshops?


I will not wait, because you will not produce any.

you first.

 

[daveman]

Who forced you to post in this thread, all ignorant-like?

You talk to yourself a lot.

Can you point to one of your posts in this thread that has any factual substance, rather than mindless insults and photoshops?


I will not wait, because you will not produce any.

Others have posted facts in this thread that refute Dick's lies. I haven't had to.

Meanwhile, how about you? Or is it different...somehow...when you do it?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he objects to provisions that would broaden protection to same-sex couples and to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Other Republicans say that expansion would increase bureaucracy and dilute the focus that should remain on helping domestic-violence victims (presumably unless they're same-sex partners or undocumented).

In fact most of the bill's proposed changes are modest tweaks of programs and policies already in place.

The law already covers some illegal immigrants who are cooperating with law enforcement, and it includes a path to green cards for victims who were potentially qualified anyway through marriage to batterers who are U.S. citizens. The renewal would just allow more qualified victims to pursue that path.

 

[Conservative]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he objects to provisions that would broaden protection to same-sex couples and to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Other Republicans say that expansion would increase bureaucracy and dilute the focus that should remain on helping domestic-violence victims (presumably unless they're same-sex partners or undocumented).

In fact most of the bill's proposed changes are modest tweaks of programs and policies already in place.

The law already covers some illegal immigrants who are cooperating with law enforcement, and it includes a path to green cards for victims who were potentially qualified anyway through marriage to batterers who are U.S. citizens. The renewal would just allow more qualified victims to pursue that path.

You have utterly refused to prove the 53% decline figured you declared is a fact.

 

[daveman]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he objects to provisions that would broaden protection to same-sex couples and to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Other Republicans say that expansion would increase bureaucracy and dilute the focus that should remain on helping domestic-violence victims (presumably unless they're same-sex partners or undocumented).

In fact most of the bill's proposed changes are modest tweaks of programs and policies already in place.

The law already covers some illegal immigrants who are cooperating with law enforcement, and it includes a path to green cards for victims who were potentially qualified anyway through marriage to batterers who are U.S. citizens. The renewal would just allow more qualified victims to pursue that path.

If domestic violence is going down, why does the act need to be expanded?

 

[Conservative]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he objects to provisions that would broaden protection to same-sex couples and to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Other Republicans say that expansion would increase bureaucracy and dilute the focus that should remain on helping domestic-violence victims (presumably unless they're same-sex partners or undocumented).

In fact most of the bill's proposed changes are modest tweaks of programs and policies already in place.

The law already covers some illegal immigrants who are cooperating with law enforcement, and it includes a path to green cards for victims who were potentially qualified anyway through marriage to batterers who are U.S. citizens. The renewal would just allow more qualified victims to pursue that path.

If domestic violence is going down, why does the act need to be expanded?

because the Dems need more voters.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Has it stopped violence against women?

 

[Dick Tuck]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley said he objects to provisions that would broaden protection to same-sex couples and to illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence. Other Republicans say that expansion would increase bureaucracy and dilute the focus that should remain on helping domestic-violence victims (presumably unless they're same-sex partners or undocumented).

In fact most of the bill's proposed changes are modest tweaks of programs and policies already in place.

The law already covers some illegal immigrants who are cooperating with law enforcement, and it includes a path to green cards for victims who were potentially qualified anyway through marriage to batterers who are U.S. citizens. The renewal would just allow more qualified victims to pursue that path.

You have utterly refused to prove the 53% decline figured you declared is a fact.

You must be a complete moron. I provided a quote by Senator Patty Murray, and you believe that I should back it up? No, shit for brains, it's your job to refute it. You sound like Daveman's brother. You both seem to think a winning tactic is to demand that someone else do your research. You're both lazy, both physically and intellectually.

 

[Conservative]

Excellent editorial in today's San Jose Mercury News, that I'm sure you'll all enjoy.

Memo to Congress: Get off the soapbox and renew domestic violence law

I thought this part sums up the lame excuses of the male Senate Republicans pretty well:

You have utterly refused to prove the 53% decline figured you declared is a fact.

You must be a complete moron. I provided a quote by Senator Patty Murray, and you believe that I should back it up? No, shit for brains, it's your job to refute it. You sound like Daveman's brother. You both seem to think a winning tactic is to demand that someone else do your research. You're both lazy, both physically and intellectually.

So, your typical standard of proof... is that someone 'said' it, so it must be true.

Then by your standard, my current sig is true.

EDIT:

By YOUR standard, Obama's statement that he'd been to all 57 states was true.

 

[WillowTree]

domestic violence law









so a domestic violence law pertains only to women? that's probably why the GOP wants to block it.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You have utterly refused to prove the 53% decline figured you declared is a fact.

You must be a complete moron. I provided a quote by Senator Patty Murray, and you believe that I should back it up? No, shit for brains, it's your job to refute it. You sound like Daveman's brother. You both seem to think a winning tactic is to demand that someone else do your research. You're both lazy, both physically and intellectually.

So, your typical standard of proof... is that someone 'said' it, so it must be true.

Then by your standard, my current sig is true.

No moron, my standard is to accept people at their word. If the claim smells like bullshit, I'll research it to see if it's false. I have yet to find any evidence that Senator Murray's claim is false. Your lazy assed standard is that someone else must prove a third party claim true. I guess you're unable to refute the good Senator's statement.