The Violence Against Women Act

Damocles said:
If you are on tribal land you are under their jurisdiction. This law now takes that jurisdictional prerogative away. It's the "nice white way" of saying, you Natives just don't care enough about your womenfolk, like us white guys.
Click to expand...


Uh, no. Not even close.

By the way, do you have any informed opinions as opposed to ignorant ones?

For those wanting information on the jurisdictional issues (and Damo, I recommend you read it) go here:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42488.pdf
 
Give the sheer volume of ignorant shit you post, Damo, a disclaimer would be nice. Your 'sarcastic' posts are indistinguishable from your serious ones.
 
Dungheap said:
Give the sheer volume of ignorant shit you post, Damo, a disclaimer would be nice. Your 'sarcastic' posts are indistinguishable from your serious ones.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who actually believed asking a question and repeating a sentiment in the article linked to by the image in the OP was an "appeal to emotion" that Damocles somehow "made up"...

One of these days you will need to tell me what really did happen to you.... I used to like talking with you, now you've become the dude that really believes that republicans want to push granny over a cliff...

(For Dungheap: This post is not sarcasm, it is an accurate recap of the thread and an observation. Also note, that this post is not an appeal to emotion, nor is it making anything up).
 
Well, what's funny about that 'sarcastic' post? Where's the humor? What's the joke?

I'm as big a fan of sarcasm as the next guy, but I just don't see it.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, what's funny about that 'sarcastic' post? Where's the humor? What's the joke?

I'm as big a fan of sarcasm as the next guy, but I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

True, not all of them are hits. This one sounded better in my head and isn't all that funny (in fact, not funny at all, I crapped on it). I'd delete it but there's a whole conversation going on about it now. Riveting it is.

(for dungheap: The riveting part is sarcasm).
 
♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪;1168639 said:
Tribal lands are not a sovereign nation the same way france is. Same thing with the amish, they still have to abide by U.S. law.
Click to expand...

Banned said:
White man no want live by indain law, stay off of indian land.
Go gamble elsewhere and buy cheap cigerettes.

Idiots agreeed with rubio saying it too too much local control away and then complained about having to be prosecuted by indians in their Nations.
Click to expand...

Anyway, Dung, this stuff along with the story I linked to was where the sentiment for the sarcasm came from. And yeah, rereading it was suckily presented and I failed at it (often happens with written word). Some of the worst I've ever written. I retract my sarcasm. You must now pretend it never was spoken, because it is the law and stuff.
 
Damocles said:
Anyway, Dung, this stuff along with the story I linked to was where the sentiment for the sarcasm came from. And yeah, rereading it was suckily presented and I failed at it (often happens with written word). Some of the worst I've ever written. I retract my sarcasm. You must now pretend it never was spoken, because it is the law and stuff.
Click to expand...

Shake it off Damo, not everyone can be funny all the time like I am.

(now that was good sarcasm)
 
Rana said:
I don't think his reasonings are sound enough! Seems pretty weak. Won't look good on his record.
Click to expand...

Especially, as I noted, his involvement in a former staff member's arrest for spousal abuse.

Darla said:
This pertains to men raping Indian women on reservations. It's one of the best parts of the act. Especially considering the history of white male sexual violence towards minority women. No more free passes. Great news for anyone who cares about women, and not just about white women. That's me. I celebrate this. Nail the fuckers.
Click to expand...

♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪;1168639 said:
Tribal lands are not a sovereign nation the same way france is. Same thing with the amish, they still have to abide by U.S. law.
Click to expand...

♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪;1168666 said:
So now everyone that isn't a member of a tribe is under jurisdiction of that tribe?

Why wouldn't the U.S. normally handle it? Something doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...

I believe the problem was women being raped on the reservations and no justice received when the rapist leaves the reservation and is protected by the courts. If our courts would pursue the rape charges then perhaps this wouldn't be necessary. It's sad that it's way and hopefully this provision will help.

♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪;1168634 said:
I believe in the court system laid out in our constitution, and believe in the laws and the processes that which they are derived from. I don't like usurping the constitution and not having my day in an American court by a jury of my peers. I know that probably tears you up inside that I would like my constitutional liberties. Doesn't mean I hate women.

The ends don't justify the means.
Click to expand...

We're all Americans, right? Although I lived in SD for several years, I don't know anything about tribal courts. Do they also provide a jury of peers? If so, why is this a problem? As I stated, American Indian women raped on reservations have no protections outside the reservation.
 
Darla said:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/13/how_abusers_get_away_with_targeting_indian_women/

Here is one good article about the problem and why this new provision was needed. There are many more all you have to do is google. This alone does not solve the shocking level of sex assaults committed against Native American women, but it's a needed step.
Click to expand...

They won't read that. Drudge didn't link to it.

Of course, if Drudge linked it, the headline would say:

INJUN WOMEN LIKE TO BE RAPED!
 
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.
 
♪┏(・o･)┛♪┗ (･o･ ) ┓♪;1168948 said:
ok so I read the salon article and I think I have mostly changed my mind.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to be so ornery? Next time I say something is a good thing, just say, you must be right Darla...
 
♪┏(・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.
Click to expand...

I think they do, but I need to check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top