The Violence Against Women Act

♪┏(・o・)┛♪┗ (・o・ ) ┓♪;1168948 said:
ok so I read the salon article and I think I have mostly changed my mind.

So I guess what the problem was, every crime was a federal issue, and not a state issue, so it's not like you could just go to the police down the street or something... which seems really weird.

And sometimes courts would be like 100 of miles away and it would be hard to get things prosecuted federally.

So I don't have much of a problem with it anymore as long as they still get due process. (I don't know if indian courts are somehow different)

My other problem is this only applies to this certain subset of crimes, which is retarded. I know there is a big problem, and it's a good first step, but it would make more sense to allow them to prosecute all crimes and not just violent against women crimes.

In some ways it really is left over from the time that the government really believed that the "savages" just didn't believe in "justice" like the glorified white guy... My previous poor attempt at sarcasm notwithstanding.
 
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.
I've been saying the same thing about the minorities on your side of the fence. Trouble is, you jackasses don't even know you're victimizing them. God knows they don't get it. Will somebody please wake up the Left before it's too late??!!
 
I've been saying the same thing about the minorities on your side of the fence. Trouble is, you jackasses don't even know you're victimizing them. God knows they don't get it. Will somebody please wake up the Left before it's too late??!!

So the democrats are using millions and millions of minorities to look diverse, but when the republicans have four blacks, three hispanics, and five women and throw them on a stage and yell "Look! We've got some too!" that's somehow the same thing?
 
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.
Could you explain why you support the act?
 
♪┏(・o・)┛♪┗ (・o・ ) ┓♪;1168948 said:
ok so I read the salon article and I think I have mostly changed my mind.

So I guess what the problem was, every crime was a federal issue, and not a state issue, so it's not like you could just go to the police down the street or something... which seems really weird.

And sometimes courts would be like 100 of miles away and it would be hard to get things prosecuted federally.

So I don't have much of a problem with it anymore as long as they still get due process. (I don't know if indian courts are somehow different)

My other problem is this only applies to this certain subset of crimes, which is retarded. I know there is a big problem, and it's a good first step, but it would make more sense to allow them to prosecute all crimes and not just violent against women crimes.
That's because no one cares if you get your ass beat. ;)
 
So the democrats are using millions and millions of minorities to look diverse, but when the republicans have four blacks, three hispanics, and five women and throw them on a stage and yell "Look! We've got some too!" that's somehow the same thing?
Nope. Those four blacks, three hispanics, and five women can actually stand on their own two feet. It's the millions and millions of minorities on your side who actually believe they're too weak to exist without Democrat assistance. Too dumb to work, too dumb to invest, too dumb to do anything except take food from your hands. Democrats are grooming minorities for poverty.
 
Nope. Those four blacks, three hispanics, and five women can actually stand on their own two feet. It's the millions and millions of minorities on your side who actually believe they're too weak to exist without Democrat assistance. Too dumb to work, too dumb to invest, too dumb to do anything except take food from your hands. Democrats are grooming minorities for poverty.

I'm willing to wager a hell of a lot of people you're describing are really white trash redneck asshole inbred hillbillies who vote for teabagger candidates.
 
I'm willing to wager a hell of a lot of people you're describing are really white trash redneck asshole inbred hillbillies who vote for teabagger candidates.
You and I both know you're full of shit. The truth hurts, doesn't it?
 
You and I both know you're full of shit. The truth hurts, doesn't it?


Now, now...dear. You should know I don't post anything on here without actually knowing the answer.

When asked about participating in specific government social programs, 97 percent of Republicans and 98 percent of Democrats say they have taken part in a government program of some kind, according to a 2008 survey run by the Cornell Survey Research Institute. Not just one or two either; the survey found that people had used around five social policies on average.
 
gop-hate-women-vawa_n.jpg
 
Now, now...dear. You should know I don't post anything on here without actually knowing the answer.
First of all, it's good to see that you were wise enough to avoid my remarks about minorities. We both know I was right on that point.

Second, you're using Huff Post as a source, which is a joke. You may as well be quoting some Joe Liberal on JPP.

Third, the article is short on specifics and long on generalizations. There is zero breakdown on what programs Republicans participated in, or for how long they were involved in the programs. And of course, there is no way in hell that Huff would go into the circumstances leading to WHY these programs were used, as we all have a pretty damn good idea which side of the political spectrum houses the majority of abusers.

And lastly, there's no such thing as "white trash redneck asshole inbred hillbillies who vote for teabagger candidates". They don't exist. This is nothing more than language of a bigot hater.
 
Back
Top