Republicans War on Women

Posts: 2340

happy jack wrote:

And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Looks like other Republicans disagree:

Quote:

Protecting women from violence and abuse has been an issue of bipartisan cooperation since President Clinton signed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Not this year.

. . .

The objections, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, are not over the VAWA as a whole, but over a few new provisions in the reauthorization -- specifically, protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, unless they're gay or illegal. Classy!

Posts: 7254

If you go to the webpage you can click the individual boxes for interactive links http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/

Posts: 3424

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

And all perpetrators should be punished based upon what they did, not based upon who they did it to.

Looks like other Republicans disagree:

Quote:

Protecting women from violence and abuse has been an issue of bipartisan cooperation since President Clinton signed the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. It was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000 and again in 2005. Not this year.

. . .

The objections, led by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and a few conservative organizations, are not over the VAWA as a whole, but over a few new provisions in the reauthorization -- specifically, protections for LGBT individuals, undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse and the authority of Native American tribes to prosecute crimes.

Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, unless they're gay or illegal. Classy!

The only valid point Grassley has is this -

The amendment Grassley proposed in committee would have focused more on immigration fraud, so that VAWA is not "manipulated as a pathway to U.S. citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals."

- but even that shouldn't be used as a deal-breaker in holding up reauthorization.

Posts: 3424

Heretic wrote:

What they did was "target a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group", which makes everyone in that group a victim, in addition to the individual attacked. It's like multiple instances of intimidation against the community at large. Should that not be punished more severely?

No, the punishment should be no different than if the crime was committed out of greed, lust, or whatever, because, first of all, you'd need to read the mind of the perpetrator in order to prove it was a hate crime. And second, there is only one individual who went through whatever he happened to go through - the victim. The rest of his group may have had their feelings hurt, but they did not undergo what the actual victim underwent.

Posts: 2340

happy jack wrote:

...you'd need to read the mind of the perpetrator in order to prove it was a hate crime.

Which renders the entire legal concept of intent, the entire cornerstone of our legal system, out of existence, since we apparently lack the psychics to prove it. That's brilliant. Laughing

happy jack wrote:

And second, there is only one individual who went through whatever he happened to go through - the victim. The rest of his group may have had their feelings hurt, but they did not undergo what the actual victim underwent.

I mean, that's why we all think so positively of the KKK/white supremacists nowadays, right? Because there were only a few blacks and homosexuals curb stomped, and absolutely no one else was affected at all.

lol!

Um... no. The immediate victim suffers the physical harm, yes, to serve as a warning others, which is a very real act of intimidation (it is an actual crime, btw) in addition to the physical violence as much as you'd like to complain to the contrary. No amount of foot stomping or fist waving or bouts of denial change that fact, and you've certainly not offered any reason why they should be ignored. Well, nothing other than a remarkably callous and heartless disregard for the communities truly ~~terrorized by such violence~~ "had their feelings hurt."

Posts: 2340

But back on topic:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Posts: 3424

Heretic wrote:

The immediate victim suffers the physical harm, yes, to serve as a warning others, which is a very real act of intimidation (it is an actual crime, btw) in addition to the physical violence ....

If, as you say, separate categories of crime were committed, and they were committed against separate victims, then the perpetrator should be tried on separate counts – once for the actual physical violence against the actual, tangible victim, and second, for the crimes of intimidation against the other so-called victims, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to produce these victims, and to establish that they too were harmed.

Posts: 2340

Quote:

If, as you say, separate categories of crime were committed, and they were committed against separate victims, then the perpetrator should be tried on separate counts – once for the actual physical violence against the actual, tangible victim, and second, for the crimes of intimidation against the other so-called victims, with the burden of proof on the prosecution to produce these victims, and to establish that they too were harmed.

Which would render terrorism nonexistent, since at worst it would only ever be ~~murder~~ manslaughter, rather than an act of violence used in an attempt to intimidate and terrorize a population into changing political policy.

Posts: 2340

But I digress...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Lady and the Troops

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

V-Jay Jay Day

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Posts: 7254

Posts: 3424

Artie60438 wrote:

Whose method of preventing female orgasms do you prefer?
The non-existent cartoon Catholics portrayed in your comic strip, or the real-life Islamists portrayed in the link below?

http://islammonitor.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1460

Posts: 7254

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

[b]Whose method of preventing female orgasms do you prefer?
The non-existent cartoon Catholics portrayed in your comic strip, or the real-life Islamists portrayed in the link below?

Non-existent? Perhaps you would like to share with us the official position of the Catholic church regarding contraception while you try to remove your foot from your mouth.

Posts: 3424

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Whose method of preventing female orgasms do you prefer?
The non-existent cartoon Catholics portrayed in your comic strip, or the real-life Islamists portrayed in the link below?

Non-existent? Perhaps you would like to share with us the official position of the Catholic church regarding contraception while you try to remove your foot from your mouth.

I'm aware of the official position of the Catholic church on contraception, and I've stated numerous times that I don't agree with it.
I am also aware that characters in a comic strip are non-existent people.
So, regarding my question:
Myself, I am very, very pro-female orgasm.
You, I'm not so sure.
But, just for the sake of argument, whose method of preventing female orgasms is preferable in the real world?
Catholic or Muslim?
I'll take door #1, Monty.
How about you?

Posts: 7254

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Whose method of preventing female orgasms do you prefer?
The non-existent cartoon Catholics portrayed in your comic strip, or the real-life Islamists portrayed in the link below?

Non-existent? Perhaps you would like to share with us the official position of the Catholic church regarding contraception while you try to remove your foot from your mouth.

[b]I'm aware of the official position of the Catholic church on contraception, and I've stated numerous times that I don't agree with it.
I am also aware that characters in a comic strip are non-existent people.
So, regarding my question:
Myself, I am very, very pro-female orgasm.
You, I'm not so sure.
But, just for the sake of argument, whose method of preventing female orgasms is preferable in the real world?
Catholic or Muslim?
I'll take door #1, Monty.
How about you?

I'll take doors number 1 & 2 since your Muslim argument is completely off topic as usual. The fact is that the Catholic church is against all forms of contraception,thus putting a damper on sex for pleasure and therefore female orgasms.

Posts: 3424

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Whose method of preventing female orgasms do you prefer?
The non-existent cartoon Catholics portrayed in your comic strip, or the real-life Islamists portrayed in the link below?

Non-existent? Perhaps you would like to share with us the official position of the Catholic church regarding contraception while you try to remove your foot from your mouth.

[b]I'm aware of the official position of the Catholic church on contraception, and I've stated numerous times that I don't agree with it.
I am also aware that characters in a comic strip are non-existent people.
So, regarding my question:
Myself, I am very, very pro-female orgasm.
You, I'm not so sure.
But, just for the sake of argument, whose method of preventing female orgasms is preferable in the real world?
Catholic or Muslim?
I'll take door #1, Monty.
How about you?

I'll take doors number 1 & 2 since your Muslim argument is completely off topic as usual. The fact is that the Catholic church is against all forms of contraception,thus putting a damper on sex for pleasure and therefore female orgasms.

Considering that you introduced the subject of religion and female orgasms, I don’t believe that you are in any position to charge me with being off-topic.
So, you’ll take door #1 and door #2?
In the context of this discussion, I can only take that to mean that you advocate both of the aforementioned methods of preventing female orgasm.
Funny, I never had you pegged as a pro-clitoridectomy kind of fellow.
Go figure.

Posts: 7254

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Considering that you introduced the subject of religion and female orgasms, I don’t believe that you are in any position to charge me with being off-topic.

Yoo hoo? Anybody home? The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women" and the cartoon is a parody of the extremes they are going to.

Quote:

So, you’ll take door #1 and door #2?
In the context of this discussion, I can only take that to mean that you advocate both of the aforementioned methods of preventing female orgasm.
Funny, I never had you pegged as a pro-clitoridectomy kind of fellow.
Go figure.

What I advocate and the cartoon satirizes, is that male virgins who go to work every day in a dress,AKA Catholic bishops, have no business laying down the rules regarding female sexual and reproductive issues.

Posts: 3424

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Considering that you introduced the subject of religion and female orgasms, I don’t believe that you are in any position to charge me with being off-topic.

Yoo hoo? Anybody home? The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women" and the cartoon is a parody of the extremes they are going to.

Quote:

So, you’ll take door #1 and door #2?
In the context of this discussion, I can only take that to mean that you advocate both of the aforementioned methods of preventing female orgasm.
Funny, I never had you pegged as a pro-clitoridectomy kind of fellow.
Go figure.

What I advocate and the cartoon satirizes, is that male virgins who go to work every day in a dress,AKA Catholic bishops, have no business laying down the rules regarding female sexual and reproductive issues.

I see.
The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women", with a focus on domestic violence.
You posted a cartoon about female orgasms vis a vis the Catholic church.
Hence, I am off-topic.
Got it.

Rolling Eyes

Posts: 7254

happy jack wrote:

I see.
The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women", with a focus on domestic violence.
You posted a cartoon about female orgasms vis a vis the Catholic church.
Hence, I am off-topic.

Yep! 1) Been listening to Rick Santorum lately or the antics of lunatic Repukes that think their latest and greatest idea is to mandate vaginal probes?
2) You also tried to steer the subject to crazy Islamics in Yemen of all places. How on earth was that relevant,einstein?

Posts: 3424

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I see.
The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women", with a focus on domestic violence.
You posted a cartoon about female orgasms vis a vis the Catholic church.
Hence, I am off-topic.

You also tried to steer the subject to crazy Islamics in Yemen of all places. How on earth was that relevant,einstein?

Sorry, Artie, but the subject had already been 'steered' toward religion and female orgasms by - wait for it - you!!!!
You really should try to stay on topic, you know.

Posts: 7254

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I see.
The topic of the thread is "Republicans War on Women", with a focus on domestic violence.
You posted a cartoon about female orgasms vis a vis the Catholic church.
Hence, I am off-topic.

You also tried to steer the subject to crazy Islamics in Yemen of all places. How on earth was that relevant,einstein?

[b]Sorry, Artie, but the subject had already been 'steered' toward religion and female orgasms by - wait for it - you!!!!
You really should try to stay on topic, you know.

I should have known that the cartoon's message would go over your head. When you can put together a cogent argument wake me up. Sleep