After caving on sandy, boehner kicks back on women this time

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Jan 2, 2013.

  1. AhmedFaisal, Jan 2, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2013

    Guest

  2. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #2
    Keep it up, GOP! You'll be a much smaller minority next time around!
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #3
    Nobody was punishing Governor Christie. Have you seen the amount of pork in the Sandy Relief Bill? It was close to one billion dollars.

    Step out of your echo chamber :rolleyes:
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #4
    1 Billion Dollars of "pork?" What is your definition of "pork?" Did you see that a chunk of that was for a new roof for the Smithsonian? Perhaps it wasn't directly related to Sandy, but are you honestly arguing against all government spending on things that need to be done? Or, are you arguing for a "single subject rule" so that amendments can't be added to bills that are unrelated? If so, I've got your back.
     
  5. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    I agree completely that the GOP is tone deaf when it comes to governing and tends to be hostile towards legislation regarding women.

    However I'm not clear on need for the Vioence Against Women Act. This feeling kind of goes along with Hate Crimes legislation. Here is an example: if we have laws against assault and murder, why have separate law that attempts to address the motivations behind specific kinds of assault and murder? Why not incorporate these provisions into existing law, or is that what these kinds of laws accomplish- incorporate specific punishments based on motivations? Is that necessary? Lets say you beat someone up. Now lets say you beat a woman up. Are there different provisions for beating a woman up versus a man? Should they be different? Any words of wisdom appreciated. :)
     
  6. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    The Violence Against Women Act...
    I am not aware of any special funding, restitution or rights to civil redress unless this Act were continued. It always was before, in a bipartisan way. Why not now?
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    Would you argue that 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc all be rolled into a single charge/penalty? Same logic, no?
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    skottichan

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #8
    Actually most of the provisions in the act are to set up funding for women's rescue centers and support systems. I find it adorable when cis-gendered, hetero, white men think the standing laws somehow protect minorities and other victimized people. Even today, judges will dismiss domestic violence cases and send the abused back to the abuser, so yes, apparently the standing laws aren't working. If humans weren't dicks to people that don't fit into their little niches, then we wouldn't need hate crime/domestic violence provisions.
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    Happybunny

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Location:
    's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
    #9
    After reading this I have the idea that prospective Republican candidates are required to skin a live puppy, and burn a kitten alive, before they are allowed to join the nasty party.
     
  10. macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the different degrees of murder covers the act of murder for whatever the motivation does it not?

    Thanks for this info.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    #11
    cannot happen fast enough!
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Actually the house passed a non-amended version of the bill, Obama threatened to veto it. So the real question might be, why does Obama hate women so much that he would compromise their safety in order to take up separate issues in the same bill and/or change a bill that has had bipartisan support in the past?

    I don't think illegals who are victims of domestic abuse should have a route to legal status, we have laws on the books that already protect against these abuses, call the police. Oh wait... you are here illegally.
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    Or in other words, you want to make sure pervs can still buy women from abroad (wether as "wife" or visiting them in a brothel) without the danger of getting prosecuted on any violent behaviour ?

    If one wants to root out human-trafficing and sex-slaves one has to make sure that the victims are protected from any legal backclash.

    (and no, I don't know whether that really was part of the orginal bill)
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    Mail order brides aren't what is being targeted here, we don't have an epidemic of illegals from any country besides one.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Bug-Creator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Location:
    Germany
    #15
    Targeted or not, they still get hit ....

    If you want to do something bout all those illegals, I've got a novel thought for you:

    Don't crimilize those poor people who just want to make a slightly better life, target those profiting from them.

    Read all those farmers employing them in the harvesting season .... ouch thats gonna put a whole new price tag on your food.

    Don't forget all those upper-middle class families having an "Esmeralda" cleaning the house and look after the kids.

    Make sure they get caught and heavily fined and don't forget to send the middle-men to jail.
    Once that is done illegal immigration will drop massivly.
     
  16. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    Even better, why not make it easier for enough people to cross the border legally to satisfy the obvious demand?
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    Id actually like the prices to go up, especially if we stop subsidizing corporate farming. It might allow local farmers to get a leg up.
     

Share This Page