• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Latest attacks in Republicans' War on women

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ichy said:
Beating your wife was illegal long before the Violence Against Women Act was passed.
Click to expand...

Indeed, when I said I was all ears, I was being sincere. I am certainly sympathetic to those who point out ways our society is unfair to men. I am less sympathetic when it seems like they are doing it to minimize the concerns about the safety/rights of women.
 
Craig234 said:
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy. Next, you can argue "they didn't include GIRLS!! THEY HATE GIRLS!"
Click to expand...

I have a female friend that is 19 years old. She is 5'2" and weighs about 95lb soaking wet. She was beaten and raped last year while walking home from school.

I've been teaching her how to shoot and she recently applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. The State of California denied her request.

Liberal policies at work :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Out of my thread, ignoramus. It's not unconstitutional, hasn't been ruled such, hasn't been attacked as such in 18 years being in effect and that's not the grounds for this vote. Bye!
Click to expand...

You only wanted to hear responses from people who agree 100% with your ideological philosophy?
 
schneiderguy said:
I have a female friend that is 19 years old. She is 5'2" and weighs about 95lb soaking wet. She was beaten and raped last year while walking home from school.

I've been teaching her how to shoot and she recently applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. The State of California denied her request.

Liberal policies at work :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

So, you're saying she won't get struck from behind and robbed and her concealed handgun taken from her, and possibly used against her? Darn, you are such a good friend.

I understand it's conservative dogma that she would never have any problem from the gun and only use it successfully to defend against an attack.

But that's a different topic you can start, not the topic of this thread 'b-b-but gun control'.
 
Craig234 said:
So, you're saying she won't get struck from behind and robbed and her concealed handgun taken from her, and possibly used against her? Darn, you are such a good friend.

I understand it's conservative dogma that she would never have any problem from the gun and only use it successfully to defend against an attack.

But that's a different topic you can start, not the topic of this thread 'b-b-but gun control'.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thank goodness she has VAWA instead. Maybe she can carry a copy around with her to wave at her attacker. He might get a paper cut :\
 
Craig234 said:
So, you're saying she won't get struck from behind and robbed and her concealed handgun taken from her, and possibly used against her? Darn, you are such a good friend.

I understand it's conservative dogma that she would never have any problem from the gun and only use it successfully to defend against an attack.

But that's a different topic you can start, not the topic of this thread 'b-b-but gun control'.
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one that was just lecturing me for trying to tell women what is good for them? 😵

Here, I'll edit your quote:

Maybe you should ask my friend for her opinion? She wants to carry a gun to defend herself.

Oh, that's right.

You know better than she does what's good for her.
Click to expand...

If you really would deny a person like my friend the right to defend herself you're a terrible person, honestly.
 
schneiderguy said:
Weren't you the one that was just lecturing me for trying to tell women what is good for them? 😵

Here, I'll edit your quote:

If you really would deny a person like my friend the right to defend herself you're a terrible person, honestly.
Click to expand...

It's a valid topic for discussion, in your thread. What part of 'not this thread' is unclear?
 
schneiderguy said:
We're having a discussion of the War on Women. My posts are on topic.
Click to expand...

No, we're not. We're discussing the two specific incidents in the broader war on women mentioned in my OP and the link, not the kitchen sink about your gun issues.

Last time I'm asking you:

Did you watch the video?
 
Lithium381 said:
Not yet, i'm at work with no sound, i'll have a look tonight when i get home
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer.

On your point, I'm sympathetic to the law being gender neutral despite the overwhelming majority of violence being against women.

Nonetheless, just because they're a minority it's an equally valid issue when it does apply to men both in terms of the substance and equal protection clause.

I'm not that familiar with the details how this is addressed in the law - it's a valid question.

I heard an interview with a member of Congress; she was expressing agreement it's an important issue for men as well, sounding like the law addresses that.

Given the law has been to the Supreme Court and that issue wasn't a problem (the part that was was ruled on by the usual radical right-wing justices 5-4), is more suggestion.

Don't miss the larger issues here, though, over the one about 'men too'.
 
Ausm said:
Yeah right....Republican LOVE...I MEAN LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Cheap labor.

Look no further then to their constant objections to raising the minimum wage and their hard on for Right to fire States.
Click to expand...

Except you forget that most of these republicans aren't conservatives but serve corporate interests
 
I just went through various articles on the subject in written form since i can't do video at the moment . . . . is the republicans main issue the path to residency/citizenship for battered women?
 
Lithium381 said:
I just went through various articles on the subject in written form since i can't do video at the moment . . . . is the republicans main issue the path to residency/citizenship for battered women?
Click to expand...

Yeah, another misrepresentation by Craig. The Dems also tried to put a bunch of other groups besides women in the bill. Interesting that Obama says he'll veto because of this but"had" to sign the NDAA. Oh "get out of my thread" is interesting. Anand wouldn't say that and this is his damn forum.
 
Lithium381 said:
I just went through various articles on the subject in written form since i can't do video at the moment . . . . is the republicans main issue the path to residency/citizenship for battered women?
Click to expand...

for women who are not yet citizens, but are married to citizens and on a green card for example, if they're abused or battered, they can divorce the man and proceed on the path to citizenship. . .

although to be honest i can't remember if this is only for women, it's on form I-751 somwehere
 
Lithium381 said:
for women who are not yet citizens, but are married to citizens and on a green card for example, if they're abused or battered, they can divorce the man and proceed on the path to citizenship. . .

although to be honest i can't remember if this is only for women, it's on form I-751 somwehere
Click to expand...

This is one of the issues. But it is more intricate that then. They want to make it so the husband is notified that his wife is claiming he abused her. Because we certainly want to give the husband an opportunity to defend himself :\

From the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-vawa-house-immigration-20120515,0,720923.story
Confidentiality is crucial. As the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee noted in its 2005 report to reauthorize VAWA and expand protections, without such guarantees, an abuser could try to derail a spouse's green-card application or push to have him or her deported. A battered woman whose application depends on her abusive husband certainly might think twice about filing if she knew her abuser would be notified that she was seeking help without him.

Eliminating the confidentiality provision is one of several changes House Republicans would like to make to weaken the law. They argue that the changes are necessary to combat fraud, in which immigrants falsely claim to have been abused in order to obtain visas. But where are the data and studies that indicate that fraud is a problem? Immigrant victims who petition for visas under VAWA are already required to supply ample evidence of abuse, such as police reports or medical records. And applications undergo intense scrutiny. In fiscal 2011, immigration officials denied nearly a third of those petitions.
Click to expand...

So wait, the fact that 1/3 of cases are dismissed for fraud is evidence that fraud is not a problem 😵
 
If Germans still did to Jewish people what our government, specifically the right, is again trying to do to Native Americans we would be at war with them again....or imposing sanctions on them at the very least.

This is an appaling move by the right and just shows how far removed from common sense and decency these people really are.

Whoever said that facism will come to America wrapped in a flag and holding a Bible was right. This is absurd.
 
This place is going to be insane the closer the election gets. If anyone thinks progressives don't want to control you, this thread should be submitted as Exhibit A.

Out of my thread, ignoramus.
Click to expand...
Leave. I'm not reading or replying to you because your posts are ignorant trolling. Leave.
Click to expand...
nehalem can't respect the request to leave my thread, goes on ignore.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the video? I'm going to ask anyone before they get a reply.
Click to expand...
Second, did you watch the video? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top