The GOP and VAWA

[lmasdlkjasdoiajusdlknm]

N3bu

I don't see what's so silly about his argument. People have been making it for years, all the way back to the Liberal movements in the 1700s. It the response to any kind of change good or bad. I'm sure back then they were worried about Liberty because they dared to think they might have to one day give slaves freedom, and what a ******** catastrophe that would be.

You forget that I am culturally insensitive towards backwardsass places that have yet to legalize gay marriage (amongst other social inequalities), hence my assumption that such logic in an "argument" is self-evidently retarded regardless of how many times it has been employed in a debate.

[Ban]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Show me one ******** law called 'Rape against women', or any other gender specific crime.

Well, we used to have laws penalizing people for getting abortions. Guess who that punished?

Old Blue Collar Joe

And naming it the 'Violence against women' act IS sexist as ********. Why not 'Domestic Violence Protection Act'?

Yes, Joe, you're so ******** oppressed by those terrible women who want protection from rape and domestic violence. Poor you.

[Wendigo]

Th'argument's silly because the slippery slope is neither a slope nor particularly slippery. Just what percentage of the population, right now, is proposing that we legalize sex with dogs and sheep? Not all that big. No reason to believe it'll be bigger in the future.

Now, there IS a (likewise feeble) movement to legalize pederasty, to wit NAMBLA, but they're distinct from homosexuals. On account of what they want is not a consensual relationship between adults.

[logan the god of candy]

Ban

logan the god of candy

yes. i think the whole goddamn thing is stupid.

It's stupid to incentivize localities to provide victim's services? To provide temporary housing for victim's fleeing abusive households? To have a database of people known to stalk and victimize women?

logan the god of candy

anything in the bill worth making law (there are a few things) should be passed by itself. there is a bunch of unnecessary crap to make stupid people feel good.

What do you consider "crap", specifically?

to the first part.. yeah, pretty much. that's not even a federal government issue.

to the second part... i consider most of it crap.

[Ban]

logan the god of candy

to the first part.. yeah, pretty much. that's not even a federal government issue.

Yes it is. Part and parcel of the General Welfare Clause. Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare, as it sees fit, by attaching conditions on the grant of funds to the states. South Dakota v. Dole.

logan the god of candy

to the second part... i consider most of it crap.

Do you understand the word "specifically"? Because, y'know, "most of it" doesn't actually answer my question.

[logan the god of candy]

Ban

logan the god of candy

to the first part.. yeah, pretty much. that's not even a federal government issue.

Yes it is. Part and parcel of the General Welfare Clause. Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare, as it sees fit, by attaching conditions on the grant of funds to the states. South Dakota v. Dole.

logan the god of candy

to the second part... i consider most of it crap.

Do you understand the word "specifically"? Because, y'know, "most of it" doesn't actually answer my question.

you're just a troll, aren't you? you do realize that when somebody says "most" that you don't ask them the define the specifics of what it is made up of because that's a waste of time. you ask them for the "least" section.

here's what you sound like to me, "Yeah, huh! that one part in that one section is a federal issue, so that makes your blanket statement wrong, durrr!!"

i'm generalizing here because i don't give a ********]. a significant amount of the bill was not a federal issue and should therefore not be a part of the bill in the first place. the parts that i think should not be a law at ******** all are deemed so by my own point of view and opinion. i think that this bill is ******** stupid and mostly a waste of ******** time and my tax dollars. some of this bill [in my opinion] is good. if the entire bill isn't good and isn't a federal issue,[in it's entirety] then there shouldn't be one federal bill covering the whole thing.

a. take the good parts, and make new bills for 'em.
b. make state bills for the non-federal issues and federal bills for the federal issues.

i really don't see how hard that is. i'm leaving now. you have my opinion and i've wasted too much time [my time is actually worthless] expressing my opinion... if you want facts, everybody already has them. we can look at the bill and we can dissect the facts, but i'm here to say that i disagree with parts of the bill.

[Ban]

logan the god of candy

you're just a troll, aren't you? you do realize that when somebody says "most" that you don't ask them the define the specifics of what it is made up of because that's a waste of time. you ask them for the "least" section.

No, I ask people to define the specifics of a judgment I disagree with. See, because that's what I want to know. Also, I'd like to know if you could actually name a single provision of the bill, since you claimed to have read it, and I'm somewhat doubtful.

I'll rephrase. Name one provision of the bill and explain why it is "unnecessary crap to make stupid people feel good." Why are provision unnecessary? Are you arguing that these aren't real problems? That the programs provided for by the grants aren't effective? Can you provide an argument for your position?

logan the god of candy

here's what you sound like to me, "Yeah, huh! that one part in that one section is a federal issue, so that makes your blanket statement wrong, durrr!!"

Wow, pulling a "here's what you sound like" line. I don't think I've heard one of those since junior high.

logan the god of candy

i'm generalizing here because i don't give a ********]. a significant amount of the bill was not a federal issue and should therefore not be a part of the bill in the first place.

Such as? The vast majority of the bill consists of STOP grants, or criminal matters relating to federal issues, such as stalking in connection with interstate travel, or sex abuse of wards of the federal government.

So, why isn't it a "federal issue"?

logan the god of candy

the parts that i think should not be a law at ******** all are deemed so by my own point of view and opinion.

So, basically when you say something is crap, it's because you don't like the law, and not an actual argument or facts? You just don't like laws that help victims of domestic violence or work to put rapists and stalkers behind bars?

logan the god of candy

i think that this bill is ******** stupid and mostly a waste of ******** time and my tax dollars.

I'm sure that'd be quite an argument if you had provided any reasons as to why, or if how tax dollars were spent was a matter of choice. Though I kind of doubt you actually any significant amount of tax dollars to the federal coffers.

logan the god of candy

some of this bill [in my opinion] is good. if the entire bill isn't good and isn't a federal issue,[in it's entirety] then there shouldn't be one federal bill covering the whole thing.

a. take the good parts, and make new bills for 'em.
b. make state bills for the non-federal issues and federal bills for the federal issues.

This sounds like an incredible amount of naivete and just general ignorance about how our legislature works and what the separation of powers actually means, but whatever.

logan the god of candy

i really don't see how hard that is. i'm leaving now. you have my opinion and i've wasted too much time [my time is actually worthless] expressing my opinion... if you want facts, everybody already has them. we can look at the bill and we can dissect the facts, but i'm here to say that i disagree with parts of the bill.

Yes, you have wasted a lot of time repeating your opinion in rather vague terms. What you have failed to do is demonstrate enough actual understanding of the bill or any particular argument that might make your opinion valid.

[logan the god of candy]

Ban

logan the god of candy

you're just a troll, aren't you? you do realize that when somebody says "most" that you don't ask them the define the specifics of what it is made up of because that's a waste of time. you ask them for the "least" section.

No, I ask people to define the specifics of a judgment I disagree with. See, because that's what I want to know. Also, I'd like to know if you could actually name a single provision of the bill, since you claimed to have read it, and I'm somewhat doubtful.

I'll rephrase. Name one provision of the bill and explain why it is "unnecessary crap to make stupid people feel good." Why are provision unnecessary? Are you arguing that these aren't real problems? That the programs provided for by the grants aren't effective? Can you provide an argument for your position?

logan the god of candy

here's what you sound like to me, "Yeah, huh! that one part in that one section is a federal issue, so that makes your blanket statement wrong, durrr!!"

Wow, pulling a "here's what you sound like" line. I don't think I've heard one of those since junior high.

logan the god of candy

i'm generalizing here because i don't give a ********]. a significant amount of the bill was not a federal issue and should therefore not be a part of the bill in the first place.

Such as? The vast majority of the bill consists of STOP grants, or criminal matters relating to federal issues, such as stalking in connection with interstate travel, or sex abuse of wards of the federal government.

So, why isn't it a "federal issue"?

logan the god of candy

the parts that i think should not be a law at ******** all are deemed so by my own point of view and opinion.

So, basically when you say something is crap, it's because you don't like the law, and not an actual argument or facts? You just don't like laws that help victims of domestic violence or work to put rapists and stalkers behind bars?

logan the god of candy

i think that this bill is ******** stupid and mostly a waste of ******** time and my tax dollars.

I'm sure that'd be quite an argument if you had provided any reasons as to why, or if how tax dollars were spent was a matter of choice. Though I kind of doubt you actually any significant amount of tax dollars to the federal coffers.

logan the god of candy

some of this bill [in my opinion] is good. if the entire bill isn't good and isn't a federal issue,[in it's entirety] then there shouldn't be one federal bill covering the whole thing.

a. take the good parts, and make new bills for 'em.
b. make state bills for the non-federal issues and federal bills for the federal issues.

This sounds like an incredible amount of naivete and just general ignorance about how our legislature works and what the separation of powers actually means, but whatever.

logan the god of candy

i really don't see how hard that is. i'm leaving now. you have my opinion and i've wasted too much time [my time is actually worthless] expressing my opinion... if you want facts, everybody already has them. we can look at the bill and we can dissect the facts, but i'm here to say that i disagree with parts of the bill.

Yes, you have wasted a lot of time repeating your opinion in rather vague terms. What you have failed to do is demonstrate enough actual understanding of the bill or any particular argument that might make your opinion valid.

you got me back. great trolling. i didn't read any of what you typed. i just want to iterate that it's my opinion. i'm just going to assume that you completely agree with 100% of the bill and think we need it back. that's what i'm going to assume is your opinion because that's all that matters here. opinion. really leaving now, troll.

[King Shining Heaven]

Prince Ikari

GunsmithKitten

Prince Ikari

. Truthfully their plight is none of my concern, as I see them as nothing more than enemies trying to socially re-engineer society and bring down traditional institutions I have great respect for.

And people wonder why I'm hostile and paranoid towards conservatives...

I am not even going to bother getting into things with you for what seems like the 50th time. We discussed all of this long ago. Give it a rest already. I am a conservative. I am a Republican. I am 22. I have a degree in Computer Science. I do not believe gays have any right to marry. They have no right to adopt children. They have no right to even be around children. Society and schools should not teach tolerance and acceptance of gays. I do not hate them. I disapprove of their lifestyle choice. I view that lifestyle choice as dangerous. Use your imagination when I say lifestyle. I view them as nothing more than a trend, a liberal subculture that has deeply sexualized our society with their flamboyance. I believe in traditional values, though I personally am not one for worshiping a deity. I still however believe in my own form of God. I believe you are mentally unstable because of your unwarranted, excessive paranoia. And this is the last I want to get into this with you.

I'd just like to clarify: do you believe gays choose to be homosexual or do you simply believe they choose to lead a homosexual lifestyle? And you believe no gay should be around a child? Even if they are the same as ordinary people save their homosexuality? And homosexuality isn't a "libweral trend" it didn't just pop up 40 years ago, you know

[Katyusha Rockets]

Maybe I'm missing something
but wouldn't it be more beneficial and help promote the cause if it was labeled
something other than Violence Against (Women) Act; and branch out beyond the scope of just women?

[Less Than Liz]

Katyusha Rockets

Maybe I'm missing something
but wouldn't it be more beneficial and help promote the cause if it was labeled
something other than Violence Against (Women) Act; and branch out beyond the scope of just women?

Dude, I just posted about this. Sure, maybe it would be advantageous to change the name, if only because it seems things are more likely to get passed if men are sure they're involved, but it's a nominal distinction. VAWA is inclusive, i.e., not gender specific.