Thread: GOP Opposes Renewal of the Violence Against Women Act

Originally Posted by Mac-7

I thought women were no longer considered the weaker sex?

Is that just another lib myth?

...only when it suits their needs...otherwise they are equal...in theory...not in practical application...



Kabuki Joe

Originally Posted by Mac-7

I think I have.

Polly and the Democrats in congress are arguing that women are weak and need special protection under the law.

And that is at odds with what our domestic bra burners have been saying for the past 30 years.

...I couldn't have said it any better myself...


Kabuki Joe

Originally Posted by PatrickT

As with class warfare, and race warfare, the gender warfare must be perpetuated by the Democrats at all costs.

...funny thing, like I've been saying women are the power in the US right now...honestly, you you think anyone will win this upcoming election without the women's vote?...which is why Obama has been trying desparately to start drawing them in with issues that matter to them...



Kabuki Joe

Originally Posted by Mac-7

I thought women were no longer considered the weaker sex?

Is that just another lib myth?

They're equal. They're not equal. Rinse. Repeat.

Violence is violence and it's covered by plenty of laws. I'm content to carve out special laws covering Male on female violence ONLY IF we as a society agree that women ARE NOT THE EQUAL OF MEN*.

* I can provide genetic proof of this thesis.

Originally Posted by Kabuki Joe

...funny thing, like I've been saying women are the power in the US right now...

They control most of the checkbooks and 100% of the (cat synonym).

Kabuki Joe wrote:
...it would be rational to admit that males and females aren't equal and that this legislation is a crutch for someone that isn't equal?...so do you admit that males/men and females/women aren't equal?...I mean if they were there wouldn't be need for laws/legislation to protect someone that is for all intended purposes equal to another...

The law in question aims to compensate for disproportionate oppression. Being oppressed doesn't make you inferior.

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

It appears that, for the first time since its introduction in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act will not be renewed. It expired on September 30th of last year. Allegedly due to new provisions proposed by the Democrats that extend its coverage to Native American communities (allowing them to prosecute abuse independently), undocumented immigrants, and gay and lesbian people, the Republican Party aims to block the renewal entirely. (The new version also adds a provision to include protection from stalking.) Methinks that's just an excuse.

Methinks it sounds like new legislation, not a simple renewal, thus it should be treated as such. Let the debate begin...

These people simply hate women in general, not 'just' minority women and homosexual people, and they've proven as much more times than I can count this last year.

Care to substantiate that claim?

Failure to renew it will unquestionably result in a major spike in sexual assaults and EVERYONE knows it.

I doubt it. Sexual predators already know that sexual assault is a criminal offense and they'll continue to attack women on their own volition, regardless of what laws are on the books. Has criminalizing rape put an end to rape? Of course not....

To stand in the way of the renewal of this legislation is to declare that you're cool with rape and abuse of women, period, end of debate, end of story.

That has to be one of the worst displays of mangled, fallacious logic I have ever seen...

Originally Posted by Subdermal

Another poster against pornography. Check.

Are you voting for Rick Santorum?

...so what's wrong with "decency"?...



Kabuki Joe

Talon wrote:
Methinks it sounds like new legislation, not a simple renewal, thus it should be treated as such. Let the debate begin...

Congratulations on being the first person so far to agree with the Republican Party's formal position on the issue in question: the argument that the VAWA is a fundamentally good law, but not when it covers too many women.

Care to substantiate that claim?

...I would consider it self-evident! Even if, for whatever reason, you think the law would now cover too many people or whatever, why would you hold the whole thing up in Congress?

I doubt it. Sexual predators already know that sexual assault is a criminal offense and they'll continue to attack women on their own volition, regardless of what laws are on the books. Has criminalizing rape put an end to rape? Of course not....

As I pointed out in the OP (and again more recently), the VAWA has been credited with drastically reducing the rate at which these things occur.

But here you seem to change the position I quoted first and actually go further than just opposing the VAWA. You imply that "criminalizing rape" might be a bad idea. What's your solution? Simply fining people for causing physical harm to others? Or just doing nothing?

Originally Posted by Polly Minx

Congratulations on being the first person so far to agree with the Republican Party's formal position on the issue in question: the argument that the VAWA is a fundamentally good law, but not when it covers too many women.

That's not my position at all - it's you putting words in my mouth.

As you pointed out, there are a host of new measures being introduced into the existing law, and as I pointed out, this disqualifies the "renewal" as a mere renewal. Since the new measure is essentially a new bill, it is reasonable that it should be treated as such. If the bill is as great as you say it is, you shouldn't be afraid of it being discussed and debated - it should fly through Congress with the greatest of ease...

...I would consider it self-evident! Even if, for whatever reason, you think the law would now cover too many people or whatever, why would you hold the whole thing up in Congress?

I consider your claim unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Perhaps, the people who introduced the new measure bill should have thought about renewing the existing legislation and then proposing additional measures if getting the existing measures passed right away was most important. This isn't the first piece of legislation that has been amended and suffered a similar fate, so the sponsors knew the risks they were taking when they overreached and disingenuously tried to ram this new bill through as a "renewal"...

As I pointed out in the OP (and again more recently), the VAWA has been credited with drastically reducing the rate at which these things occur.

But here you seem to change the position I quoted first and actually go further than just opposing the VAWA. You imply that "criminalizing rape" might be a bad idea. What's your solution? Simply fining people for causing physical harm to others? Or just doing nothing?

You have a vivid imagination, Polly - I never took a position on the VAWA and I never implied that criminalizing rape might be a bad idea - to be honest with you, I think that our country is far too lenient with rapists. Nevertheless, it is disingenuous to claim that this new legislation is a mere "renewal" - it's not a renewal, and it's reasonable that it should be treated as such.