Why Is The GOP Against Reauthorizing The VAWA?

[HUGGY]

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.

It's war.

 

[Conservative]

Can you, or can't you, refute Senator Murray's statement. If you'd like to know her sources, give her office a call and ask. The number is in the book. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Not my homework, asshat... it's yours. YOU posted the link. YOU claim her statement is accurate.YOU refuse to provide PROOF it is accurate... because you can't.

You really do suck at this.

Actually I could. I'd need full access to the Uniform Crime Statistics at DOJ, with some documentation of their coding technique. But you could too. I could call Murray's office to see how came up with that stat, and double check it.

The point is I won't. If you want to refute what a Senator and principal stated, do it. Unless you can't. Now get back to your pissant stalking game. I find it amusing.

Then you fail to understand one of the main precepts of posting... that would be to prove what you claim. All you did was post a statement, and repeatedly fail to prove it's contents.

You beat women. You repeatedly beat women. You have a long history of beating women. You've been arrested for beating women... repeatedly. You served time in prison for beating women.

I could prove all that, but I refuse to. It's YOUR job to prove I am wrong.

(See? I can play your dumb-ass game too)

 

[Papageorgio]

The pinhead lied from the start of the thread.

I really am beginning to think he is brain damaged or something.

How could one possibly not understand the difference between a FACT (proven with actual verifiable statistics), and a STATEMENT (made with nothing concrete to back it up.)

I mean, he HAS to be brain damaged... right?

The facts are clear. The reauthorizaion of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate Judiciary 10-8. All no votes came from middle-aged, white male, Republicans. Most white male Republicans in the Senate are now trying to stop a simple up or down vote. Those facts are indisputable, and what these Republicans are going to have answer to their constituents about.

Please try and keep up. You don't seem very bright.

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I really am beginning to think he is brain damaged or something.

How could one possibly not understand the difference between a FACT (proven with actual verifiable statistics), and a STATEMENT (made with nothing concrete to back it up.)

I mean, he HAS to be brain damaged... right?

The facts are clear. The reauthorizaion of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate Judiciary 10-8. All no votes came from middle-aged, white male, Republicans. Most white male Republicans in the Senate are now trying to stop a simple up or down vote. Those facts are indisputable, and what these Republicans are going to have answer to their constituents about.

Please try and keep up. You don't seem very bright.

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

The significant change was that law enforcement asked them to increase the number of temporary visas, so they could prosecute scumbag abusers. Republicans are making tin foil claims that this would lead to fraud, without any real evidence. Yeah, let them stand on that lie and use that excuse with their constituents. Why not just send victims and witnesses home if their visa expires or were here undocumented. Better to let those who prey on women go free than someone stays in this country too long.

Do you really believe this lame excuse is going to work?

 

[Dick Tuck]

I really am beginning to think he is brain damaged or something.

How could one possibly not understand the difference between a FACT (proven with actual verifiable statistics), and a STATEMENT (made with nothing concrete to back it up.)

I mean, he HAS to be brain damaged... right?

The facts are clear. The reauthorizaion of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate Judiciary 10-8. All no votes came from middle-aged, white male, Republicans. Most white male Republicans in the Senate are now trying to stop a simple up or down vote. Those facts are indisputable, and what these Republicans are going to have answer to their constituents about.

Please try and keep up. You don't seem very bright.

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

It turns out that Native American women are physically and sexually abused at much higher rates than others. More money was needed for services on tribal lands. This request, btw, was made by Republican Senator Murkowski. It seems that this is a serious problem in Alaska, where she stated that rapes are 2 1/2 times higher than the national average.

 

[MolochSolomon]

George Bush, and his son , the last two republican presidents and their Cronies Bill clinton and Barack Obama are war criminals. You support these people: you are a terrorist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The facts are clear. The reauthorizaion of the Violence Against Women Act passed the Senate Judiciary 10-8. All no votes came from middle-aged, white male, Republicans. Most white male Republicans in the Senate are now trying to stop a simple up or down vote. Those facts are indisputable, and what these Republicans are going to have answer to their constituents about.

Please try and keep up. You don't seem very bright.

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

It turns out that Native American women are physically and sexually abused at much higher rates than others. More money was needed for services on tribal lands. This request, btw, was made by Republican Senator Murkowski. It seems that this is a serious problem in Alaska, where she stated that rapes are 2 1/2 times higher than the national average.

Republicans are not complaining about that. They do disagree with allowing Indians authority to arrest and try non Indians as I understand. Something added to the bill.

As to your claim..... You see one does not prove a negative. You made a claim. It is not our job to disprove that claim. It is yours to prove it. A simple statement from a politician is not proof of anything. Add to that two different links now that PROVE that domestic violence has INCREASED not decreased and you have a credibility problem.

Doesn't help that you simply lie about why Republicans oppose the NEW bill. Nor that you lie about motives for opposing it. Your thread title is simply wrong.

You have failed to prove a single claim you have made. You have been presented with links to CREDIBLE sources that disprove your statements and you refuse to provide a single link to a credible source that even remotely supports your claims.

You are a partisan and may have simply let your partisan opinion let you make misleading statements with out facts to back them. What makes you a LIAR is after being shown your statements are simple incorrect you repeat them and refuse to back them up with a single source that substantiates any of your claims.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If they put new wording and new funding and added to the bill, it is not a reauthorization as you claim. Only a stupid partisan hack with shit for brains would think so. Secondly, your stat of 53% is seemingly way off and by you hanging on to it proves you don't want real facts or real information, you just want to believe whatever you are told by a party. Sometime try thinking for yourself.

It turns out that Native American women are physically and sexually abused at much higher rates than others. More money was needed for services on tribal lands. This request, btw, was made by Republican Senator Murkowski. It seems that this is a serious problem in Alaska, where she stated that rapes are 2 1/2 times higher than the national average.

Republicans are not complaining about that. They do disagree with allowing Indians authority to arrest and try non Indians as I understand. Something added to the bill.

This is what Senator Murkowski, a Republican, asked for. I said male Republicans. It seems the female Republicans want to let this bill go to the floor, be debated on its merits, and have a vote. That's something the male Republicans are trying to block.

As to your claim..... You see one does not prove a negative. You made a claim. It is not our job to disprove that claim. It is yours to prove it. A simple statement from a politician is not proof of anything. Add to that two different links now that PROVE that domestic violence has INCREASED not decreased and you have a credibility problem.

Until there's proof that Senator Murray pulled this out of her butt, I have no reason to disbelieve it. If you don't believe it, there are ways to prove her statement is false. Until you can do that, that's the only readily available information I have.

Doesn't help that you simply lie about why Republicans oppose the NEW bill. Nor that you lie about motives for opposing it. Your thread title is simply wrong.

You have failed to prove a single claim you have made. You have been presented with links to CREDIBLE sources that disprove your statements and you refuse to provide a single link to a credible source that even remotely supports your claims.

Not my claims, Senator Murray's. She's been involved with reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, so I take it she's been in hearings and heard from experts and has the staff resources with enough clout to get questions answered.

You are a partisan and may have simply let your partisan opinion let you make misleading statements with out facts to back them. What makes you a LIAR is after being shown your statements are simple incorrect you repeat them and refuse to back them up with a single source that substantiates any of your claims.

Except I haven't been shown that my statements were incorrect. All I've seen is hand waving demanding that I prove that a quote a principal made is correct. Sorry man, I don't do parlor tricks for wingnuts. Every claim I made was substantiated. I have no reason at this point to doubt the basic facts of the McClatchy article I used as a source. McClatchy is a good news organization, so I assume if anyone is bullshitting, they'll have the where-with-all to debunk it.

No, you're the partisan hack. You're the one coming up with tortured logic to justify the Republicans trying to stop an up or down vote on a reauthorization bill to help protect and support women who are victims of sex crimes and domestic violence.

 

[Clementine]

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.

Violence against another person is illegal everywhere. Why do we always have to separate people into groups and deal with them so differently? A crime is a crime and if someone is violent, they should be arrested and charged. Why does it matter who the victim is when it comes to handling the situation?

I saw a lot of battered women when I worked in a hospital. I couldn't believe how many actually stuck up for their abusers. We can't force women not to be subservient. Try that with any Muslim woman. Some believe they should be slaves to men and obey them.

This is another example of how the left has separated and created duplicate laws for a group just so they can claim they care more. Why not uphold existing laws instead of writing new ones that don't do any more to solve the problems?

 

[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.

Violence against another person is illegal everywhere. Why do we always have to separate people into groups and deal with them so differently? A crime is a crime and if someone is violent, they should be arrested and charged. Why does it matter who the victim is when it comes to handling the situation?

I saw a lot of battered women when I worked in a hospital. I couldn't believe how many actually stuck up for their abusers. We can't force women not to be subservient. Try that with any Muslim woman. Some believe they should be slaves to men and obey them.

This is another example of how the left has separated and created duplicate laws for a group just so they can claim they care more. Why not uphold existing laws instead of writing new ones that don't do any more to solve the problems?

1. This is not a new law. It's been on the books since 1995. The current reauthorization has some minor tweaks, but it's the same.

2. Existing laws are inadequate, since they may require visa modifications for students, tourists, and even undocumented folks to be able to stay in the country long enough to help prosecute people who prey on women.

3. Your point about people often staying with people who broke their jaw, for instance, is valid. Often it's because these victims feel they have nowhere to go, so things like shelters are needed.

4. As the Republican lady from Alaska pointed out, physical and sexual abuse against Native Americans is much higher than the norm, and there's a need to address that, and current law is insufficient.

This is not a simple criminal law. It's a public law (like how much should we spend on the nest super dooper radar system), which attempts to be more comprehensive in serving the public interest, and trying to deal better with many facits of assisting women who are victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

They hate women. That's why.

Duh.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Let me google that for you

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Kinda like how civil rights for blacks was something better handled at the state level?


If your state doesn't want the money provided to it by VAWA it doesn't have to take it. Jesus fucking Christ you people are stupid.

 

[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.

They hate women. That's why.

Duh.

I think hate is the wrong word. To me it seems like the knuckle draggers have a belief that the male of the species ought to dominate the relationship. It should be the male who makes reproductive choices for the female. It ought to be a right that the male can screw or beat the crap out of the female. Sadly, that's been a good part of the history of western civilization, and many conservatives seem to yen for those glory days of yore. Not wanting to give into to some wingnuts that demanded I address other cultures, I am in fact happy to see our evolution to where our Secretary of State is dealing with women's rights on a global basis.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Republicans are opposed NOT to the act , they want to reauthorize. They are opposed to specific things ADDED this year that do not belong in this bill.
In fact the Republican leadership has stated for the record they would vote to reauthorize the bill if the added material was NOT in it. The OP has presented a basic lie as some kind of fact. he has claimed that because the republicans oppose the new material they support violence to women and don't agree with the basic law. All proven to be straight up LIES.

He was informed he was wrong and continues to make the claim, that means he has chosen to lie about it. Further he has been presented numerous times in this thread with the reason the Republicans oppose the CURRENT bill and keeps claiming no one will explain why the Republicans support violence to women. Another lie.

The fact remains that Grassley and his ilk have been caught in a lie about their reason for opposition. The significant change in the bill is the number of temporary visas issued from 10,000/yr to 15,000 a year. This was inserted at the request of law enforcement. Grassley and the Republicans now want to come up with some tin foil theory that this would lead to immigration fraud. There's your lie.

Which does not explain your claim that left leaning republican women (Snow, Collins and Murkowski) would be anti women.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

They hate women. That's why.

Duh.

I think hate is the wrong word. To me it seems like the knuckle draggers have a belief that the male of the species ought to dominate the relationship. It should be the male who makes reproductive choices for the female. It ought to be a right that the male can screw or beat the crap out of the female. Sadly, that's been a good part of the history of western civilization, and many conservatives seem to yen for those glory days of yore. Not wanting to give into to some wingnuts that demanded I address other cultures, I am in fact happy to see our evolution to where our Secretary of State is dealing with women's rights on a global basis.

Which does not explain your claim that left leaning republican women (Snow, Collins and Murkowski) would be anti women.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

That begs the question how much violence against women takes place in a small community?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I think it's bad form, but there are some valid points to be brought up.

I'm always concerned about hate crime laws that make special classes of victims.

VAWA also lead to a lot of silliness we wouldn't allow in other areas of law, such as bringing up prior bad acts as evidence in trials. Something we don't even do in murder cases.

 

[Too Tall]

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.

G5000 posted this and you apparently didn't read it, chose to ignore it, it are too stupid to understand it.

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.

 

[editec]

Its just more of the GOP's war on women.

They're basically seeking to defund woman's shelters.