Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #1041

    Jan 5, 2013, 03:07 PM
    I'm amazed how this reconciliation process doesn't work
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1042

    Jan 5, 2013, 03:24 PM
    Not hard to understand when you know the specifics . First ;theoretically violence against anyone is a crime. But OK they made special provisions for crimes against women in 1994 by a bi-partisan Congress ;and Clintoon signing.
    So what happens this time when it comes up for reauthorization ? Well the House passes the bill like it was . But the Dem Senate suddenly decides that the violence against women law should now extend to lesbians ,gays ,transgenders ,transformers ,and illegal aliens .

    When 2 different versions of the same bill gets passed by both Houses of Congress then there needs to be a conference committee to iron out the differences . There is where the bill stalled . So who's at fault . The House that passed the bill as it had always been ;or the Senate that unilaterally changed the bill ?
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #1043

    Jan 5, 2013, 04:24 PM
    What I mean is this Tom we have a mechanism for resolving empasses, it's called a double dissolution. When one party blocks legislation the government can use it as an excuse to dissolve both houses and force an election. Even relatively minor matters can provide this excuse. The threat means that there has to be negotiation in good faith in most matters and only a few thorny issues remain which will only force a dissolution if the government thinks it can win the election. No solution and the bills ultimately lapse.

    The question isn't who is at fault, the two houses exist so that there is even handedness in legislation, it is part of the democratic process that legislation gets reviewed and modified. I know that sometimes undesirable changes are made for political purposes particularly when you have the situation you do where the party controlling the House is essentually the opposition to the governing party typified by the President. It is all part of the cut and thrust of politics
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1044

    Jan 5, 2013, 06:18 PM
    Lets see 1994, now we are in 2012, its time to modernize because we have more diverse people to protect. I can go with the process, and see what happens but adding gays and trans genders is no big deal, is it? How does that slow the process down?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1045

    Jan 5, 2013, 06:20 PM
    Why do you need separate legislation when violence against anyone is a crime... no ? It is essentially the same problem I have with so called 'hate' crime. Violence against anyone is illegal.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1046

    Jan 5, 2013, 06:44 PM
    House Passes Violence Against Women Act That Leaves Out LGBT, Immigrant Protections

    They passed a watered down version that excludes gay and immigrants. Just like everyone thought they would.

    During the House debate, Democrats charged that the GOP bill would actually leave victims of domestic violence worse off than they are under current law. Unlike the Senate bill, the House proposal discourages undocumented immigrant women from reporting abuse without the threat of being deported. It also makes it harder for Native American women to seek justice against their abusers, and it leaves out protections for the LGBT community altogether.

    Republicans "rarely miss an opportunity to exclude LGBT Americans from important rights and benefits," Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said. "They're saying if you're a woman in a relationship with another woman, then you don't deserve the same protections from domestic abuse or sexual assault."
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1047

    Jan 5, 2013, 07:32 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello WG:

    Shhhhh, you'll remind them that they've BEEN at war with women for a LONG, LONG time.

    You saw what tom said about the Lilly Ledbetter law.. He called her Lilly Bedwetter... I suppose it's because she wanted to be paid the same as guys are, and had the TEMERITY to SPEAK up. Clearly, she does NOT know her place.

    But, there's no war. Look over there at the commie Marxist...

    excon
    Given that Obama pays his women staffers 18% less than his male staffers; I'm surprised none have brought him up on Bedwetter charges. This was also true of his campaign staff. Female employees were earning an average of $6,872,compared with an average of $7,235 for male employees. That is a difference of 5.3 percent or $2,100 per year.

    Now we know that Valerie Jarrett is a top advisor to the President ;but a recent photo of him from a White House Flickr account shows him surrounded by his "top advisors" ,an all male cast .Where is Jarrett ?
    P122912PS-0422 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Seems like his only female advisor of note recently was Sandra Fluke.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #1048

    Jan 5, 2013, 07:42 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    shows him surrounded by his "top advisors" ,an all male cast .Where is Jarrett ?
    The women had gone off to the ladies room.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1049

    Jan 5, 2013, 08:31 PM
    One picture is hardly evidence of anything and I would need job description to verify he indeed is paying woman less for the same job, so lets not assume unless you have those facts and for sure NO lawsuits have been filed or complants from the females involved.

    None of that has anything to do with what the right has done and the laws they have written and passed or the election results we have just witnessed.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1050

    Jan 6, 2013, 03:39 AM
    The information was obtained through the White House own web page . You can do the calculations yourself or trust that the information ;available at many cites ,is accurate .
    Female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000... Male employees $71,000.

    2011 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff | The White House

    One picture is hardly evidence of anything
    Look at the caption again... "In the Oval Office, the President meets with senior advisors to discuss the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations."
    Where are the female "senior advisors " ?
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #1051

    Jan 6, 2013, 03:47 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Lets see 1994, its time to modernize
    Tal aren't you a couple of centuries out there?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1052

    Jan 6, 2013, 03:57 AM
    It's silliness . You could write up hundreds of pieces of legislation identifying which special group deserves protection against violence. Or you can have one law that says violence against anyone is illegal.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #1053

    Jan 6, 2013, 04:50 AM
    Yes Tom violence is illegal and the instruments of violence should be illegal too
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1054

    Jan 6, 2013, 05:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    yes Tom violence is illegal and the instruments of violence should be illegal too
    Most violence... especially domestic violence, is done with blunt instruments knives and bare hands . Good luck making them illegal.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1055

    Jan 6, 2013, 07:09 AM
    White House salaries, 2011 - Spreadsheets - Los Angeles Times

    What do republicans have against lgbt, and immigrants?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #1056

    Jan 6, 2013, 07:39 AM
    Nothing ;why do you think they deserve special treatment under the law ? Isn't that against the 14th amendment ? Doesn't laws against violence already cover equal treatment under the law ?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1057

    Jan 6, 2013, 08:10 AM
    That's the point, they have not gotten the equal protection under the law they seek. That's why they holler. Because you don't listen to their needs, and don't know what they are, then how can you dismiss it so easily?

    What's the skin off your nose to include them? Don't tell me they don't need it because you don't know that.
    cdad's Avatar
    cdad Posts: 12,700, Reputation: 1438
    Internet Research Expert
     
    #1058

    Jan 6, 2013, 08:18 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    Thats the point, they have not gotten the equal protection under the law they seek. Thats why they holler. Because you don't listen to their needs, and don't know what they are, then how can you dismiss it so easily?

    Whats the skin off your nose to include them? Don't tell me they don't need it because you don't know that.
    Can you show me where is says in any law that violence is a crime except against these people...


    Honestly I can't seem to find it anywhere Or is this the tired old argument that everyone should be a special class except those deemed by a political party? What part of illegal is beyond your understanding?
    .
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,325, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #1059

    Jan 6, 2013, 09:45 AM
    One of the obstacles for lgbt, immigrants, and native Americans is in the low priority there cases are prosecuted and like rape victims the difficulty in even bringing a case against the perpetrators because of jurisdictional conflict in local courts and low evidence because of resources.

    That's why even domestic violence cases have been difficult to bring forth and usually after repeated incidence of a clear paper trail do these actually even get to a court, so there are groups that have no avenues to get away from the perpetraor, orthe resources toeve be treated for their being a victim,especially in te Indian naion who have been hollering for years at not having jurisdiction to even serve a warrant to perpertrators outside their own land.

    Illegals have the added obstacle of fear and intimidation because they have no recourse in courts as they have no standing just being illegal. They are victimized with no fear of retaliations ever. Often by the ones who employ them in the first place.

    Including them in the new bill would raise them as a priority of the court and allow prosecutors and the victims the resources to actually get these cases through the courts and eliminate the ease they are exploited and victimized. It also resources the processing of evidence like rape kits and adds them to a national data base and sadly even domestic cases by citizens already is way behind in getting DNA and other evidence that can only be done in a lab.

    Making domestic violence a higher priority should be a national focus and all should be included. So its not about special laws for special groups, its about raising the level of awareness and resources for groups that have had the least access and resources to get the equal protection under the law that's guaranteed us.

    You know as well as I do where no money is earmarked specifically, there will be NO action. That's what the original VAWA was supposed to address, and expanssion is needed at this time to prevent some who are falling through the cracks by the millions. Heck it's the same money but stretched farther.

    Advocates stunned Violence Against Women Act allowed to expire | News - Home

    Maybe this will shed some light of what local advocates around the country actually are faced with.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #1060

    Jan 7, 2013, 08:07 AM
    All I know is all this effort by the left to bring us together by separating everyone by special interest group is counterproductive.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

Obama's war on women [ 18 Answers ]

Why does Obama hate women? Add to that the fact that Obama doesn't care about real life issues women are facing such as gas and grocery prices instead of $9.00 contraceptives, and I'd say Obama is the one waging a war on women, not Republicans.

What personality traits do Black Women have vs. Asian, Iranian or White Women? [ 8 Answers ]

I would like to think of myself as a strong willed and independent African American woman, and have been recently dating a person who is from Iran. Now for the most part things are great but I have a feeling that he doesn't understand the personality traits of Black Women vs.the women he has dated...

World War two prisnor of war camps [ 4 Answers ]

There was movie I saw, back in like the early 70's. The story line was a prisnor of war camp along the German/Swiss border or German/Austrian border. The POW's build a glider and launch it from the ridge of the top floor roof, using a tub that is dropped from several stories to provided the...

Is the Iraq War just merely a political conflict or really a War? [ 10 Answers ]

The Iraq War has been awfully quiet these days. I read historical documentaries about other wars and, every time there's a war, It would cause much panic and it would all be on the news and everything. Officials would be all over the nation trying to find recruits and signs are up. But the Iraq...


View more questions Search