Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?
Wrong! There are already provisions for special visa's it is part of the law, it is the part that Republicans will renew without issue. You are either dishonest or very ignorant on the subject and are reacting out of emotion.
And law enforcement asked that the number be raised from 10,000 to 15,000 annually, to help assist in prosecution. The Republicans are using some tin foil theory to claim that this would result in major immigration fraud. Sorry, but that's a lame excuse.
domestic violence law
so a domestic violence law pertains only to women? that's probably why the GOP wants to block it.
domestic violence law
so a domestic violence law pertains only to women? that's probably why the GOP wants to block it.
By a wide margin, women are the most likely victims, but also men. The public law also protects male victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Wrong! There are already provisions for special visa's it is part of the law, it is the part that Republicans will renew without issue. You are either dishonest or very ignorant on the subject and are reacting out of emotion.
And law enforcement asked that the number be raised from 10,000 to 15,000 annually, to help assist in prosecution. The Republicans are using some tin foil theory to claim that this would result in major immigration fraud. Sorry, but that's a lame excuse.
There is no cap on victims of abuse, the law states that as long as the cooperate with authorities, they are allowed to stay. So the exemption really doesn't help, nice try.
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.
And of course, that's the entire purpose. They're scoring political points with the base, and blaming the GOP for blocking unnecessary changes.If domestic violence is going down, why does the act need to be expanded?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:
because the Dems need more voters.
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.
And law enforcement asked that the number be raised from 10,000 to 15,000 annually, to help assist in prosecution. The Republicans are using some tin foil theory to claim that this would result in major immigration fraud. Sorry, but that's a lame excuse.
There is no cap on victims of abuse, the law states that as long as the cooperate with authorities, they are allowed to stay. So the exemption really doesn't help, nice try.
Wrong. There is a cap on the number of visas made available, and law enforcement requested that number be increased.
Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free. Since 2000, VAWA has offered victims of domestic violence and sexual assault protection against deportation when they aid in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Immigrant victims can apply for a special visa, but only if law enforcement certifies that they have been cooperative. This new version of VAWA seeks to renew this very successful program, at the request of law enforcement agencies and advocates across the country.
There is no cap on victims of abuse, the law states that as long as the cooperate with authorities, they are allowed to stay. So the exemption really doesn't help, nice try.
Wrong. There is a cap on the number of visas made available, and law enforcement requested that number be increased.
http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kaufman/violence-against-women-act-2012_b_1339525.html
FTA:
Immigrant women without legal status are especially vulnerable to abuse, since going to the authorities carries with it the risk of deportation while the abuser may go free. Since 2000, VAWA has offered victims of domestic violence and sexual assault protection against deportation when they aid in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Immigrant victims can apply for a special visa, but only if law enforcement certifies that they have been cooperative. This new version of VAWA seeks to renew this very successful program, at the request of law enforcement agencies and advocates across the country.
Furthermore, it would expand the availability of visas for undocumented immigrants who have been victims of domestic violence and may be reluctant to come forward because of the risk of deportation.
VAWA has always protected this group of individuals, but the reauthorization would raise the cap on visas for battered women and sexual assault victims from 10,000 to 15,000. The additional visas would come from recaptured visas in previous years, which haven't been utilized.
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.
You didn't do any research. You quoted a Democrat.
Normal people need more than that.
Why haven't you responded to the posts that show your claim is wrong?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.
You didn't do any research. You quoted a Democrat.
Normal people need more than that.
So what did your research turn up? Are you still afraid to open up pdf files?
I think it designed to fit in with the narrative that there is a war against women, when nothing could be further from the truth, said Janice Crouse, of the Concerned Women for America. Crouse signed a letter from a coalition of 23 conservative groups opposing the bill, which they called nice-sounding but deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence to advance the feminist agenda.
If you follow the money, this bill is a boondoggle for feminist organizations, she said, pointing to funding for social-work organizations and programs that provide counseling and training services. More broadly, It has created a climate where all men are suspect and all women are considered victims.
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.
You didn't do any research. You quoted a Democrat.
Normal people need more than that.
So what did your research turn up? Are you still afraid to open up pdf files?
You have yet to provide any evidence at all, one way or the other. All you've done is quote her, and take it as Gospel.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.
Dick Tuckeduphisass doesn't JUST have penis envy.
He is such a fail, he even envies women with larger than standard size clits.
True story.
D.T. your obligation (as per your own version of logic) is to disprove that claim.
Best of luck, ya hapless dickless fuckwit.
Dick Tuckeduphisass doesn't JUST have penis envy.
He is such a fail, he even envies women with larger than standard size clits.
True story.
D.T. your obligation (as per your own version of logic) is to disprove that claim.
Best of luck, ya hapless dickless fuckwit.
Except you made the statement, not some third party with standing. You defend your statement. I don't have to defend Senator Murray's. Are you too slow on the uptake to see the difference?
Now get back to your reach around with Daveman and Conservative, they're starting to feel a draft.
It's funny when leftists use homosexuality as an insult and then insist it doesn't mean they hate gays.Dick Tuckeduphisass doesn't JUST have penis envy.
He is such a fail, he even envies women with larger than standard size clits.
True story.
D.T. your obligation (as per your own version of logic) is to disprove that claim.
Best of luck, ya hapless dickless fuckwit.
Except you made the statement, not some third party with standing. You defend your statement. I don't have to defend Senator Murray's. Are you too slow on the uptake to see the difference?
Now get back to your reach around with Daveman and Conservative, they're starting to feel a draft.
They use is as a shield...they hope by accusing YOU of it YOU will go away and leave them alone.It's funny when leftists use homosexuality as an insult and then insist it doesn't mean they hate gays.Dick Tuckeduphisass doesn't JUST have penis envy.
He is such a fail, he even envies women with larger than standard size clits.
True story.
D.T. your obligation (as per your own version of logic) is to disprove that claim.
Best of luck, ya hapless dickless fuckwit.
Except you made the statement, not some third party with standing. You defend your statement. I don't have to defend Senator Murray's. Are you too slow on the uptake to see the difference?
Now get back to your reach around with Daveman and Conservative, they're starting to feel a draft.
