Republican Party dead set upon losing 53% of the vote (women)

[OldDog]

Normally I only read these political posts, but what I read elsewhere this morning (from a partisan website that I visit) is so contraindicative of the post (from your partisan source), that I feel compelled to break from my usual silence (except for laughing outloud at much of what is posted here).

From the look of things, this "War On Women" tactic being employed by Democrats is politics at its near-worst.

Enjoy.

The VAWA was originally passed in 1994 and has remained in effect through both Republican and Democrat Congresses. On March 12, 2012, the Judiciary Committee voted on the reauthorization of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Act, introduced by Senator Leahy. Unlike the last reauthorization of VAWA in 2006, which passed by unanimous consent, S. 1925 contained provisions that had never appeared in past authorizations of VAWA. For these reasons, Sen. Grassley, the Ranking Member, offered a Republican substitute amendment to the Leahy bill. Republicans voted for the Grassley substitute and Democrats for the new Leahy version. The new Leahy version passed through committee, but Democrats chose not to schedule it for a vote.

Like the Leahy bill, the Grassley substitute provided over $400,000 [sic] in authorizations for grants to serve victims of domestic violence. However, it differed in very important ways from the Leahy bill.

The Leahy bill contains a number of new and controversial immigration provisions. For example, it expanded eligibility for and increased the number of visas available to certain individuals (whether in the U.S. or a foreign country) who may be helpful in the investigation of a crime. However, as the law is currently written, this visa category is subject to rampant fraud and misuse, e.g., sham marriages; false allegations of a crime. The Grassley substitute contained fraud-prevention measures. The Leahy bill also eliminated the requirement making these visa applicants ineligible for admission if they would become a public charge upon entry in the U.S. The Grassley substitute did not contain this new provision.

In a dramatic break from legal precedent, the Leahy bill also gave criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian individuals to Indian Tribes and allowed Tribes to expel non-Indians from privately held land. The Grassley amendment did not contain this provision.

By any objective measure, the Leahy Bill deliberately contains unserious legal provisions on issues such as immigration designed to create the false appearance of obstruction—an effort made all the more remarkable given that Senate Democrats opposed a better version of the legislation and haven’t scheduled theirs for a vote. With Senator Schumer’s open declaration that this is a hollow political ploy, it is impossible not to conclude this is a manufactured story designed to distract from the Senate Democrat Majority’s shameful record on the economy – including a staunch refusal to take action to lower gas prices, create jobs or even write a budget (this being the third year in a row they will have failed to offer a budget plan for the country).

[Danzig]

old dog, the dems are enjoying the fact that the republicans are in an extended primary period...hence they are an easy target. and of course the democratic machine would prefer that everyone pay attention to the republican machine right now, so that the democrats chicanery is not center stage.

obamacare-passed by a congress that was assured it wouldn't pass the trillion dollar price tag. oops.

ndaa-a colossal mess, one that i hope the eventual republican nominee attacks at length. congress should be embarrassed they created that bill, the president should be beyond embarrassed that he signed it into law.

this administrations insistence that u.s. citizens can legally be killed by their government without due process-absolutely doesn't pass muster constitutionally.


do i find santorums and his ilk attacking certain women's issues to be palatable? no, but it helps to show he's not fit for national office, so in that regard he's doing us a favor. are there bigger fish to fry? absolutely! luckily many of us can pay attention to multiple topics simultaneously.
will all women in this country vote for obama? lol of course not.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Danzig

old dog, the dems are enjoying the fact that the republicans are in an extended primary period...hence they are an easy target. and of course the democratic machine would prefer that everyone pay attention to the republican machine right now, so that the democrats chicanery is not center stage.

obamacare-passed by a congress that was assured it wouldn't pass the trillion dollar price tag. oops.

ndaa-a colossal mess, one that i hope the eventual republican nominee attacks at length. congress should be embarrassed they created that bill, the president should be beyond embarrassed that he signed it into law.

this administrations insistence that u.s. citizens can legally be killed by their government without due process-absolutely doesn't pass muster constitutionally.


do i find santorums and his ilk attacking certain women's issues? no, but it helps to show he's not fit for national office. are there bigger fish to fry? absolutely! luckily many of us can pay attention to multiple topics simultaneously.
will all women in this country vote for obama? lol of course not.

All due respect, but that is statement is rather ridiculous. Sanatorium when asked if your daughter was RAPED would you really want her to carry that child to term. " I would counsel her to ACCEPT GOD'S GIFT" That is a disgusting attack on women's rights! Not to mention this sick kook, is talking about a what if involving his own child! He's NUTS! Yes they're are other issues to deal with, but people of his ilk shouldn't be elected dog catcher, much less leader of this country, they're views are dangerous in my opinion!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

All due respect, but that is statement is rather ridiculous. Sanatorium when asked if your daughter was RAPED would you really want her to carry that child to term. " I would counsel her to ACCEPT GOD'S GIFT" That is a disgusting attack on women's rights! Not to mention this sick kook, is talking about a what if involving his own child! He's NUTS! Yes they're are other issues to deal with, but people of his ilk shouldn't be elected dog catcher, much less leader of this country, they're views are dangerous in my opinion!

ooops...didn't complete my initial sentence in that paragraph, thank for pointing it out. as you can see, the next sentence says he's unfit for office imo.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ooops...didn't complete my initial sentence in that paragraph, thank for pointing it out. as you can see, the next sentence says he's unfit for office imo.

Ok no problem. That just stuck a nerve after some of the footage of the kooks comments! Unfit to say the least lol!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Ok no problem. That just stuck a nerve after some of the footage of the kooks comments! Unfit to say the least lol!

yeah, he is a kook. i think he only won those southern primaries because altho there's no great love for catholics down here in these areas, they don't consider that church a cult like they do mormons. i just wonder how the voting will go down in the southeast if romney gets the nomination.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, he is a kook. i think he only won those southern primaries because altho there's no great love for catholics down here in these areas, they don't consider that church a cult like they do mormons. i just wonder how the voting will go down in the southeast if romney gets the nomination.

At he's honest lol! The main difference between Sanatorium and Williard, these nutty views are his true views, instead the total FRAUD that VoMitt Romulan is!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

obamacare-passed by a congress that was assured it wouldn't pass the trillion dollar price tag. oops.

What you and Dell constantly fail to mention is that the bill is paid for, and does not add to the deficit. While reducing Medicare costs.

ndaa-a colossal mess, one that i hope the eventual republican nominee attacks at length. congress should be embarrassed they created that bill, the president should be beyond embarrassed that he signed it into law.

True. That needs to be gone. The progressive side of politics should attack the President on that one (as civil rights for every citizen is a progressive issue rather than the conservatives who created it and put it into law in the first place)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Normally I only read these political posts, but what I read elsewhere this morning (from a partisan website that I visit) is so contraindicative of the post (from your partisan source), that I feel compelled to break from my usual silence (except for laughing outloud at much of what is posted here).

Yes, thank you for what you posted. Because your addition also points out how the current Republican party absolutely can not bring themselves to give any rights to Indian Tribes, let alone immigrants.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, thank you for what you posted. Because your addition also points out how the current Republican party absolutely can not bring themselves to give any rights to Indian Tribes, let alone immigrants.

S.1925 states that it recognizes the “inherent power” of Indian tribes “which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons.” But, there is no inherent power of tribes to do anything of the sort the bill says. Self-government is not government over “all persons” – including non-Indians. Because tribes lack this power, it’s untrue to say that Congress can recognize and affirm it. For the first time, the Committee would extend tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Why would Congress, should it decide for the first time to make such a change, do so on a bill to reauthorize VAWA? Why should domestic violence cases be the first criminal cases to be treated in this way? What precedent would be created that might lead to other prosecutions of non-Indians in tribal courts?

-- Senator Chuck Grassley

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

S.1925 states that it recognizes the “inherent power” of Indian tribes “which is hereby recognized and affirmed, to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over all persons.” But, there is no inherent power of tribes to do anything of the sort the bill says. Self-government is not government over “all persons” – including non-Indians. Because tribes lack this power, it’s untrue to say that Congress can recognize and affirm it. For the first time, the Committee would extend tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians. Why would Congress, should it decide for the first time to make such a change, do so on a bill to reauthorize VAWA? Why should domestic violence cases be the first criminal cases to be treated in this way? What precedent would be created that might lead to other prosecutions of non-Indians in tribal courts?

-- Senator Chuck Grassley

The Republican Party hates it when the Democrats get something by them that helps American citizens.