It might be ok to beat women soon . . .

Forum: Politics Page 1 of 3  1 2 3  
Author: [Politics] Topic: It might be ok to beat women soon . . .
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24279
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 3/16/2012 2:10:08 PM
if the republicans have their way.  republicans against Violence Against Women Act.  how would a law protecting (female) victims of domestic violence ever get past today's republicans?
J_Galt PM J_Galt
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
 
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/16/2012 3:15:15 PM
I wish that partisan articles like this would provide a link to the bill.

I am guessing that there are other things attached to the bill that the republicans disagree with.

like when the anti gambeling bill was attached to the port security bill
Posted using a mobile device.
cashin PM cashin
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12716
 
cashin
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 3/16/2012 3:42:57 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by J_Galt:

I wish that partisan articles like this would provide a link to the bill.

I am guessing that there are other things attached to the bill that the republicans disagree with.

like when the anti gambeling bill was attached to the port security bill

Yeah, and it was a republican senator (Bill Frist - R/Tenn) who got it attached to the Port Security Act without alot of politicians even knowing about it. This seems pretty straightforward & now after years of bipartisan support, repubs are holding back under Obama.

chilitokid PM chilitokid
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 10257
 
chilitokid
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 3/16/2012 3:53:20 PM
Are you saying there aren't chicks who beat on guys? Because I can make you look foolish!!!
captjohn67 PM captjohn67
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12821
 
captjohn67
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/16/2012 3:57:19 PM
appears there are attachments that include same sex couples and a provision that gives illegal imigrants a temporary visa
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24279
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:22:39 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by chilitokid:

Are you saying there aren't chicks who beat on guys? Because I can make you look foolish!!!


i looked all through this thread for where i might have said that and couldn't find anything. 
ClubDirt PM ClubDirt
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 24279
 
ClubDirt
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:25:38 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by captjohn67:

appears there are attachments that include same sex couples and a provision that gives illegal imigrants a temporary visa


i saw where the article said the bill also included protection from violence for gays and illegals but i didn't see any other unrelated rights/protections.  if republicans are easing restrictions on beating women, you know it's open season on the gays and brown folks.  but that's just the san francisco article.  it's not exactly thorough.  jgalt asks a good question. 


cd329 PM cd329
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 18791
 
cd329
Participation Meter
MVP
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:33:56 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by cashin:

Yeah, and it was a republican senator (Bill Frist - R/Tenn) who got it attached to the Port Security Act without alot of politicians even knowing about it. This seems pretty straightforward & now after years of bipartisan support, repubs are holding back under Obama.



it was frist, goodlatte andkyl that produced that piece of garbage gambling bill. On top of that the they voted for it at 3:00 a.m.
Those pricks knew that the democrats had to vote yes for the security bill or else they would have looked like huge idiots. Republicans played them bigtime on that one.
To top it off, that dirtbag kyl writes a gambling bill and how gambling is so wrong, yet the hypocrite took huge amounts of cash from the casinos.


J_Galt PM J_Galt
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
 
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/16/2012 4:48:43 PM
CD329

They would be taking a position because it would be a bill with multiple attached legislature.

No different than what this appears to be.

1 case: democrats are against securing our nation

2nd case : republicans are against protecting women from domestic violence

It's then up to the parties mouthpieces to explain specifically why they voted a certain way
Posted using a mobile device.
rooster010 PM rooster010
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 10899
 
rooster010
Participation Meter
All-Star
Posted: 3/17/2012 5:53:24 AM

cdpainpills does not understand that

he is a lemming blinded by partisan rage

republicans are evil and greedy, democrats are the saviors of the world

KOAJ PM KOAJ
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 66698
 
KOAJ
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 3/17/2012 6:52:28 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by cd329:



it was frist, goodlatte andkyl that produced that piece of garbage gambling bill. On top of that the they voted for it at 3:00 a.m.
Those pricks knew that the democrats had to vote yes for the security bill or else they would have looked like huge idiots. Republicans played them bigtime on that one.
To top it off, that dirtbag kyl writes a gambling bill and how gambling is so wrong, yet the hypocrite took huge amounts of cash from the casinos.




everytime a law is passed you need to dig deep and figure out who paid for it to be written

EVERY TIME!!!! this is no different than TARP or any other bill that passes congress
gmdewar PM gmdewar
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 73
 
gmdewar
Participation Meter
Prospect
Posted: 3/17/2012 2:27:46 PM

"It might be ok to beat women soon . . ."

 

 

Please dont tease us with things that could only be too good to be true.

canovsp PM canovsp
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5720
 
canovsp
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 3/17/2012 4:06:28 PM
I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I predict these upcoming articles from the Chronicle:
Republicans are racists because they want people to have an ID
  when they vote.
Republicans are sexists because they don't want the govt to
 mandate contraception in health care plans.
djbrow PM djbrow
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14416
 
djbrow
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 3/18/2012 11:56:05 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:

I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I predict these upcoming articles from the Chronicle:
Republicans are racists because they want people to have an ID
  when they vote.
Republicans are sexists because they don't want the govt to
 mandate contraception in health care plans.

Congratulations.

Although one would not have thought it humanly possible, you somehow succeeded in preventing  #4 from being the most ridiculous post in this thread.

dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/18/2012 4:27:25 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:

I was waiting to read why Republicans were against the bill. Instead of asking one of the senators and running a quote this reporter from San Francisco told us in his/her own words why Republicans were against the bill.

I predict these upcoming articles from the Chronicle:
Republicans are racists because they want people to have an ID
  when they vote.
Republicans are sexists because they don't want the govt to
 mandate contraception in health care plans.


So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger....  could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?
canovsp PM canovsp
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5720
 
canovsp
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 3/18/2012 4:33:19 PM
If this was a stand alone bill I'm sure no one would be against it. But as mentioned above, there are probably earmarks tied to this bill that have nothing to do with the title of the bill.

I usually like to hear both sides but the jackass from the Chronicle only gave us one side. Just because you believed the reporter doesn't mean you are a jackass. It only means you are liberal.
djbrow PM djbrow
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14416
 
djbrow
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 3/18/2012 4:45:28 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:

If this was a stand alone bill I'm sure no one would be against it. But as mentioned above, there are probably earmarks tied to this bill that have nothing to do with the title of the bill.

I usually like to hear both sides but the jackass from the Chronicle only gave us one side. Just because you believed the reporter doesn't mean you are a jackass. It only means you are liberal.

I don't blame you for being upset given the full sides of all issues you get from Faux news.

dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/18/2012 6:04:51 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:

If this was a stand alone bill I'm sure no one would be against it. But as mentioned above, there are probably earmarks tied to this bill that have nothing to do with the title of the bill.

I usually like to hear both sides but the jackass from the Chronicle only gave us one side. Just because you believed the reporter doesn't mean you are a jackass. It only means you are liberal.


How does this make anyone a liberal?

I am not asking about or believing in the article

I simply asked you....

"So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger....  could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?"

That was all, I never gave or took credibility from the source (which you seem to be hung up on as a deterrent from the actual topic)
what are you afraid of that you continue to go there rather then answering the question?


canovsp PM canovsp
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5720
 
canovsp
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 3/18/2012 10:40:16 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by dl36:



How does this make anyone a liberal?

I am not asking about or believing in the article

I simply asked you....

"So as a conservative/GOP/Right winger....  could you explain to me the ideology behind being against the bill?"

That was all, I never gave or took credibility from the source (which you seem to be hung up on as a deterrent from the actual topic)
what are you afraid of that you continue to go there rather then answering the question?



Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?
djbrow PM djbrow
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14416
 
djbrow
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Posted: 3/18/2012 10:52:08 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:


Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?

Its called partisans. Both sides of the spectrum engage in it.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually believe these things you type.

dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/19/2012 5:01:55 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by canovsp:


Liberals hate showing both sides of a debate (remember, don't judge us on the results. Judge us on our intentions.). This reporter has his beliefs and affirms his own beliefs by writing what you read (if you read the article) Did you see the other sides argument?

You ask how could anyone be against the bill? If you would have read the first part of post #16 you would have noticed I wrote no one would be against the bill if this was it. There are probably earmarks tied to it. If the bill read "We want to punish men who are violent against women-Part A/Along with the above, we want to fund the mass murder of puppies-Part B." Now a lot of people are against the bill.

When you make a decision on a political subject such as global warming, the death penalty, Keystone Pipeline, Republicans against Violence Against Women, etc, do you want to hear both sides or do you make your decision based on the first story you read?


not really interested in your personal description of liberals...

simply asked you a question about the conservative perspective...

I did not ask how anyone could be against it...  I simply asked about your perspective as to why GOPs are voting against it...

I am pretty sure that a mass murder of puppies are not the earmarks... So lets talk about reality instead...

The article states that the sticking point is too many protections for happy and illegal immigrant victims of violence.

Which are typical GOP talking points/causes...

It also stated that it would broaden tribal rights...  I am wondering is it a GOP stance to be anti-native/tribes?
IT also


14daroad PM 14daroad
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9261
 
14daroad
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 3/19/2012 9:42:12 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

if the republicans have their way.  republicans against Violence Against Women Act.  how would a law protecting (female) victims of domestic violence ever get past today's republicans?

 

Er, yes because as we all know, when there is a domestic violence incident the FEDERAL government comes and takes a report!

We need a FEDERAL law to stop domestic violence, NOW!!!

You leftists are amazing.

Really, truly, amazing.

dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/19/2012 2:26:52 PM
So that is why GOPs are against the Violence against women act?

figures that you would have a rolling head joking about what many think is a serous matter... simply displays your character...

I get it now
dl36 PM dl36
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 27850
 
dl36
Participation Meter
Banned
Posted: 3/19/2012 3:31:54 PM

canovsp PM canovsp
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5720
 
canovsp
Participation Meter
Captain
Posted: 3/19/2012 4:35:00 PM
DL:

If there is pork (earmarks) tied to the bill that would be why GOP'ers would be against a federal law.

Did you ever think there are laws on the book already covering this? If a man beats his wife or girlfriend in California or New York the local police and DA already handle it. What good would a federal law do?
Forum: Politics Page 1 of 3  1 2 3  
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.