The Violence Against Women Act

H

Howey

Banned
After almost a year of sitting in limbo, the Senate yesterday passed the Violence Against Women Act, which now includes provisions protecting Native American, undocumented, and LGBT victims of domestic violence.

The following pigs, I mean Senators, voted against the act.



Note the first guy pictured. That would be one Marco Rubio, the so-called new star of the Republican Party, the guy who's so dumb he doesn't realize he's a victim of racism within the party.


Those of us in Florida know Rubio. We know he's got a checkered past that will never pass muster on a national scale. We also know why he's against the Violence Against Women Act.

An aide to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) resigned Monday after he was arrested for battery following a bizarre incident in which his wife alleged he rolled her up in a carpet, beat and kicked her.

Rubio’s Southwest Florida regional director, Michael J. Brennan, 39, was taken into custody Saturday by Lee County sheriff’s deputies at a motel in Fort Myers, authorities said. He was booked in the Lee County Jail and released after posting a $1,000 bond. Brennan has denied the allegations through his attorney.
Click to expand...

Brennan’s wife, Kelly Brennan, told sheriff’s deputies that she called 911 after a fight with her husband at their home in Bonita Springs, according to the police report.

She and her husband had begun arguing while driving home. Upon getting out of the vehicle, he pushed her onto a carpet that was lying on the garage floor. She pretended to pass out, she told investigators, and he began to roll her up in the carpet “as if I was dead or something.”

He then proceeded to kick and punch at the carpet with her inside, she said. After her husband went inside their house, she followed him to confront him, and the two began arguing again.

After Kelly Brennan told the babysitter to leave, she said her husband pushed her against a wall, injuring her elbow. Deputies found blood marks on the wall where she said she was pushed.
Click to expand...

Like the cozy group of women-hating pigs pictured above proves, they take care of their own.

 
Domestic violence in the State of Alaska is very high. This is the reason Lisa Murkowski supported the bill because it funds education and prosecution of abusers. Alaska airwaves have public service announcement and programs in the villages.
 
Rana said:
Domestic violence in the State of Alaska is very high. This is the reason Lisa Murkowski supported the bill because it funds education and prosecution of abusers. Alaska airwaves have public service announcement and programs in the villages.
Click to expand...
so this act does nothing but give alaska money to educate (who?) and prosecute abusers? why isn't alaska doing that on it's own?
 
This would be the same thing as saying Kerry voted against funding for our military people at the front when he voted against the funding bill because of changes that he didn't like.

A protest vote on a bill they knew would pass. If the bill wouldn't have passed without their vote it is likely they would have voted for it.

Anyway, here's somebody who actually went out to find out why they voted that way rather than just assuming they are in some way "pro-violence against women".. Was it worth it? :dunno: Questioning the effectiveness of a law and it unintended consequences isn't something that makes them "pro-women-beating".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/
 
The VAW Act of 1994 never had a problem until the Democrats decided to add bullshit provisions to it ....and it would have been reinstated a year ago
if not for them.....
 
Damocles said:
This would be the same thing as saying Kerry voted against funding for our military people at the front when he voted against the funding bill because of changes that he didn't like.

A protest vote on a bill they knew would pass. If the bill wouldn't have passed without their vote it is likely they would have voted for it.

Anyway, here's somebody who actually went out to find out why they voted that way rather than just assuming they are in some way "pro-violence against women".. Was it worth it? :dunno: Questioning the effectiveness of a law and it unintended consequences isn't something that makes them "pro-women-beating".

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/
Click to expand...


Where's the part that says why these Senators voted against it? I don't see it. Also, too, the part about these being "protest votes" and any indication that any of these Senators would have voted for the bill if the vote was close?
 
Dungheap said:
Where's the part that says why these Senators voted against it? I don't see it. Also, too, the part about these being "protest votes" and any indication that any of these Senators would have voted for the bill if the vote was close?
Click to expand...

Well, you should consider that the story is, quite literally, about "why would anybody be against" the law to mean that these are some of the reasons those votes were made.

And I make the second part as a judgment, the same judgment that I use to create the opinion that Kerry would have as well voted for the bill even though he was against some of the changes... if he felt that funding for the troops was actually in danger.

The Whips know the vote count before they start, this information isn't hidden from the people who will vote and is often used as a reason to change a vote (ie. "This could die and then endanger the whole party, not just you" type of warnings).

Basically, using knowledge gained through years and years of political watching one can build an opinion based on political ideology and say that these "evil men want women to be carpet smudges" or one can actually apply that knowledge and create a far more realistic opinion based on what they know about the process. We know which way you usually choose to go. Ideologues generally make generic "evil" statements often. Stuff like, "Republicans want dirty air and water"... Unrealistic, ideologically and partisanly based, utter nonsense it is, but it works to get other ideologues excited...

Do you really believe that any of those men want their daughter beaten?
 
Damocles said:
Well, you should consider that the story is, quite literally, about "why would anybody be against" the law to mean that these are some of the reasons those votes were made.

And I make the second part as a judgment, the same judgment that I use to create the opinion that Kerry would have as well voted for the bill even though he was against some of the changes... if he felt that funding for the troops was actually in danger.

The Whips know the vote count before they start, this information isn't hidden from the people who will vote and is often used as a reason to change a vote (ie. "This could die and then endanger the whole party, not just you" type of warnings).

Basically, using knowledge gained through years and years of political watching one can build an opinion based on political ideology and say that these "evil men want women to be carpet smudges" or one can actually apply that knowledge and create a far more likely scenario.

Do you really believe that any of those men want their daughter beaten?
Click to expand...

Ok, but like, where's the part that says why these Senators voted against it?

And that last question is just a stupid appeal to emotion. I'm sure these Senators don't want their kids killed in a drone strike, either, but I don't see them passing legislation to stop the President from having the unilateral authority to do it.
 
NOVA said:
The VAW Act of 1994 never had a problem until the Democrats decided to add bullshit provisions to it ....and it would have been reinstated a year ago
if not for them.....
Click to expand...

Could you please list those "bullshit provisions", thank you.
 
Dungheap said:
Ok, but like, where's the part that says why these Senators voted against it?

And that last question is just a stupid appeal to emotion. I'm sure these Senators don't want their kids killed in a drone strike, either, but I don't see them passing legislation to stop the President from having the unilateral authority to do it.
Click to expand...

Damo appealing to emotions, how can this be? Lmao
 
Dungheap said:
Ok, but like, where's the part that says why these Senators voted against it?

And that last question is just a stupid appeal to emotion. I'm sure these Senators don't want their kids killed in a drone strike, either, but I don't see them passing legislation to stop the President from having the unilateral authority to do it.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is an appeal to emotion to limit your "logic" to emotive nonsense like "These men want women to be beaten!"

You apply the fallacy you purport to object to...

Anyway, it is what it is. She went to find out why, as listed in the beginning of the story, and then told you what she found. It isn't that hard to follow, Dung.

They didn't vote against this because they support women beating, you, myself, and even Rana know it. Nobody here who has participated more than an hour actually believes anybody is stupid enough to actually believe that these men want women beating to increase. Some may believe it is a legitimate "debate" tactic, but it really is worthless on a site where people pay more than political ad length attention to politics.
 
Damocles said:
Actually, it is an appeal to emotion to limit your "logic" to emotive nonsense like "These men want women to be beaten!"

You apply the fallacy you purport to object to...
Click to expand...

That's awesome. Uh, where did I apply the fallacy and who are you quoting bold?


Damocles said:
Anyway, it is what it is. She went to find out why, as listed in the beginning of the story, and then told you what she found. It isn't that hard to follow, Dung.
Click to expand...

Strange that not a single Senator is quoted in a story about why Senators voted the way they did.


Damocles said:
They didn't vote against this because they support women beating, you, myself, and even Rana know it. Nobody here who has participated more than an hour actually believes anybody is stupid enough to actually believe that these men want women beating to increase. Some may believe it is a legitimate "debate" tactic, but it really is worthless on a site where people pay more than political ad length attention to politics.
Click to expand...

Uh, you just keep on making shit up. I didn't say they support women beating. Your appeals to emotion and strawman tactics are really weak. I mean, its OK to criticize Republicans for doing stupid shit. No need to go to these lengths to defend them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top