GOP's version of the violence against women act

You know Allison, I really don't care. From this day forward, I will not respond to you.

Arabs are a ethnic people who live in a region we call the middle east.
There are Europeans, persians asians north africans and arabs that are muslims.
Islam is a religion and people who practice its beliefs are called muslims.
Many countires you cited are Arab and are ruled by muslims.
Egypt Morrocco and other countries in North Africa are not arab but are muslim. Shalom

Thank you for your explanation, Db. I understand, I think? Arab is an ethnicity separate from religion. Israel is also in the middle east, but not Muslim…not all Jews are from Israel and not all Arabs are Muslim…

If this is correct, then someone can be an Arab Jew or an Israeli Muslim????


I should go to bed….

Reseach done by Pew (and others) indicates only about 20% of the world's Muslims live in Arab countries. You listed percentages by country; I'm talking about the entire Muslim population. While only 13% of Indonesians are Muslims, that's many, many people (over 200 million -- more than Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya and Saudi Arabia combined). Pakistan has about 11% of the world's Muslims; India roughly another 11%. Turkey (about 5%) and Iran (another 5%) also house many of the world's Muslims. There are more Muslim's in the UK than there are in Lebanon, and more in China than there are in Syria. While Saudi Arabia may be 97% Muslim (not 100%), that accounts for less than 2% of the world's Muslim population.

This is correct. It's kind of the same thing as saying that all Christians are white people -- which I'm sure you know is quite false.

Allison Finch, Not only have you smeared the GOP on this thread, you've smeared Conservatives, the Tea Party, white families -white males in particular - and Christians as well.

I have to ask, what evidence do you have that the Tea Party is a "radical" or "terrorist" organization?

The "source" of your original post was Talking Points Memo. TPM is self-described as "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall." Of course TPM is going to imply that the GOP "hates women". TPM is a leftist site. That's what leftists do. So you start off this thread by using a biased source to back up your own biased viewpoint.

You told others to get informed. Maybe you should try it too. Many parts of the VAWA have been ruled **unconstitutional**. Perhaps that is why the Republicans were blocking it and not because they "hate women"?

Violence Against Women Act reauthorization contains unconstitutional provisions - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com

I almost didn't bother with this thread but when I saw this I had to respond:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allison Finch     Face, you are getting too vehement. If you cannot disagree without becoming rude and abusive, there will be consequences.

I saw nothing rude or offensive in anything Faceman posted. But Allison, you came down on him like a ton of bricks and threatened him with "consequences". And yet you allowed the Republican Rape Advisory Chart? Really?? Do you have any idea how offensive that is? But it fit your agenda so I guess it was okay?

By their very nature and purpose they are "radical", since radical means relating to the fundamental nature of something or a person who advocates political reform.

Terrorism is a tough term, but can mean more than just suicide bombers. It means the use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes (or a terroristic method of resisting government). One can then view terrorism as inflicting massive harm on innocent people to obtain a political objective or resist a government... sound familiar? I'm not implying the Tea Party is the only party to do this... just saying.

I did find this amusing: some Texas schools are teaching that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism...

OK, it took me a while to decide to respond to this post. I guess I was hoping this thread would die on this rude post, but.....




Not smeared....questioned. I am a Christian, so I feel I have the right to question some of the deeds done in the name of Christ. Tim McVeigh did what he did in the "name of Christ", although not MY Christ. My comment about the just desserts for those killing "family values" was concerning the protections that the GOP stripped from the legislation. THOSE people have been labeled as the ones "killing family values"

You, my friend, need to reread what I posted. I said there is a fine line between radical (which I consider many in the tea party to be) and terrorist (which I believe Tim McVeigh was). I never said the Tea party was a terrorist organization. However, there ARE those, in this country, who still believe in what THAT terrorist (McVeigh) did. I never even implied it was part of the tea party movement.

And your viewpoint is any less biased? I think not. We just disagree. I, however, respect your right to believe as you wish without "calling you out" on a personal level.

Ruled unconstitutional? I guess when the Republican party decided to go ahead and reinstate it, they believed it was unconstitutional? I think not.

Again, you are too late. It was voted back in. Must not have been as unconstitutional as YOUR biased site claimed, huh?

There is a difference between disagreeing and calling people ignorant and other personal attacks. I have disagreed with you without being nasty, I think. I think this forum asks that of all of us here. While I may be a moderator, I am a volunteer. Moderators are allowed to participate and give our opinions here, just as everyone else here. We do try not to be rude in our exchanges with various amounts of success.

As for the rape chart someone posted...

1. It was done as tongue in cheek humor that most here saw.

2. You cannot deny that these things were said, unwisely. I would be embarrassed if members of my party had said these things, too. I'm sure many things Biden has said were equally unwise. I have never heard him say things directed against women, however.

It is not the moderators job to censor all opinions in the politics forum. We allow a certain amount of leeway, as long as rude and personal attacks are not part of that opinion. I cringe at some opinions here, but it would be a poor forum if I removed everyone who disagreed with me. Maybe that is why your post is still here, no?

Allison, I received a private message from a moderator (not you) telling me my post had been removed. To your credit you reposted a portion of my original post.

As far as the unconstitutionality of the VAWA is concerned, yes, many laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional. That's why we have a Supreme Court. I expect there will be cases based on this law that will find their way to the SCOTUS. Time will tell.

I can see that their is little point in continuing this discussion with people who claim the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and that Republicans hate women. I'd sure hate to live in your world.

[QUOTE=xlntperuvian;1944161
I can see that their is little point in continuing this discussion with people who claim the Tea Party is a terrorist organization and that Republicans hate women. I'd sure hate to live in your world.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

Show me where I said the tea party is a terrorist org? I have twice said that they are radical. I said that there is a fine line between radical and terrorist. Many things said by McVeigh were along the lines of the tea party platform, BUT I specifically said that only McVeigh/Nichols carried it to extremes and into terrorism.

Please feel free to list the unconstitutional portions of the act for us to discuss here.

I am quite comfortable in my open minded world where, unlike you, I accept other people's rights to their beliefs. It seems you are obsessing on minutia.