There should be a law against committing violence against women. It should be the law against assault and battery. That law should also protect men against violence. I think it's already on the books, isn't it?
By the way, what is Obama going to do about violence between gay couples now that he supports gay marriage?
I really, really like this guy. He gets it. He demonstrates his understanding. He refuses to yield to petty politics. We need a couple hundred more of him and dam soon.
That woman should have exercised her 2nd Ammendment rights and bought a gun, practiced with the gun, and exercised the right to protect herself by blowing away that sorry excuse for a man straight to hell. The police will not be there to save most of the time; they will be there to record the crime scene and help prosecute after the fact. I believe Tedd Nugent would agree with me. God rest her soul and others like her.
I called my Rep to vote NO for this Bill because it had a provision for illegal women to get instant visas claiming rape...who put THAT gaping gate in there? It didn't work..even most Tea Party guys voted for it...sigh
Thank you for the video... wow. Trey Gowdy is really on fire... passionate, persuasive... I hope he has a bright future and continues to fight the good fight. Very impressive.
Gowdy is a goody
This is an issue that needs more attention and apparently he is passionate about
He risked censure by not yielding the floor
I think we will see a lot of him
Too bad Boehner doesn't have the fire that Gowdy has
I heard Boehner proclaim that he would not bend on raising the debt ceiling again, here shortly. I'll believe it when I see it. He must still have figurative black and blue marks all about his crotch, accompanied by finger depression marks around his neck, and millions of fickled finger gestures stuck in his mind's eye.
If I were looking at Bohner, I'd have to start singing, "Don't cry for me Argentina". Followed by a rebel yell...buck up and do what you were sent to do! Folding and bluffing was not part of the mission. Man up!
It would have been more effective for a woman to be making this speech seeing as this violence is perpetrated by men. That being said, women who find themselves in this position due to lack of self confidence, self esteem and self image. Whatever the cause, what they need is a speech about empowerment not laws to protect them which never do until they are shot, stabbed or beat to death and buried somewhere. That law is pretty much ineffective at that point.
Women have poor self image thinking their only worth is wearing tight, skimpy clothes, tons of make up, allowing men to use them for sex while the man has multiple partners and basically just letting men have control over them. While some men may find that attractive, I think many find a strong, intelligent woman much more respected and alluring. This is not about bashing men. This is about the image women have portrayed themselves as.
Hot Patootie, bless my soul. Ye ole'TRS is back!
I give it three thumbs up, if I can find a third thumb.
Man-crushin' on Gowdy here. This guy is grrrrreat! If he were running against Tony The Tiger, I'd still vote for him. Take it to 'em sir.
I agree. I didn't know what I liked about the format until it was taken away. A stark contrast for me. But then, I'm an old edsel, and not easily moved to change, unfortunately. Not necessarily a good thing.
Yep. I've had a Yahoo e-mail account for business use for over a decade and it keeps getting worse and worse, slower and slower. When they first changed it, you could hit a button and revert to Yahoo e-mail classic. Now you cannot. They overload it with all manner of advertising, tracking etc, to the point where even though computers get faster and internet connections get faster, the actual experience gets slower. Frustrating to the nth degree. Yahoo is the worst. I wish they would fix it.
Regarding the VAWA that Gowdy is speaking of on this thread, I hope people know that all the Republicans want to do is reauthorize it. The Democrats want to augment it to where it sets up untenable conflicts, and precedents.
Democrats are a destructive species of animal. I cannot properly verbalize the constant, even ever-increasing, disdain and disrespect I have for them. To me they are like The Plague. Would that more people paid closer attention to what's going on. If you are a democrat or vote for democrats, you are quite literally my enemy. I mean it. The mere fact that someone actively, with eyes wide open, chooses to be a democrat boggles my mind. Ok, I'm done for now.
Love the OLD format.
New one crashed my iPad.
Also attached my name to some one else's comment.
Wasn't even typing.
Would love to see all the old 'has been' farts in Congress replaced with guys like Gowdy and West! What a breath of fresh air!
This guy Gowdy came out of the woodwork and he is turning DC upside down. He is fantastic. I want to hear more from him.
As the debate turned to same-sex marriage, Perkins said “I believe that changing the definition of marriage is problematic.” Matthews cleverly pointed out that the Mormon church changed definitions from polygamy to monogamous marriage, asking Perkins if that change is problematic, but never let him answer.
This man is awesome. We need more like him to help stop violence against women and children should be added to that.
A special word to Scoop:
Scoop, I love your posts and your diligence in keeping us updated with new information but I am not keen with posting in this new format. The up and down votes hurt my eyes and my votes. Can we go back to the previous format (or take a vote at what works best for everyone), s'il vous plait??
You can zoom in using your browser (true for nearly all current browsers). That should help some. One good thing about this format is that it takes up less space, allowing you to read more at a glance. So for me, at least, it speeds me up.
Also, it helps to give it a few days before asking to change it. After we all have time to "beat on it" a while, we can better (ahem) Disqus what to do about it.
(BTW, that's my own opinion, and has nothing to do with what Scoop plans on doing with the site.)
Yeah, I thought my page just wasn't loading properly, lol. But does this have anything to do with the site? I use Disqus and it says it's the new Disqus.
Many years ago I volunteered to do counseling for abused women who managed to get to a safe house along with their children, so I have a great deal of understanding and empathy for their situations. The safe houses were run by non-profits from the local community. Thank goodness for the safe houses.
I'm not versed on the specifics of this legislation, so I don't understand the federal funding issue. I'm just not sure why it is a federal issue. Shouldn't the community and the local churches be providing safe havens?
Nice speech but a conservative fail. He sounded like a lefty in every possible way. He cares. He pleads. Then supports a bill that taxes me - I mean confiscates my property against my will and sends it to another state. Liberalism at its best.
Don't Tread On Me Congressman. This is not a federal issue. Such is the state of the Republican Party these days. Sorry RightScoop, not awesome at all.
You do understand that the fedral government does have some duties one of which is the protection of we the people .I am sure you have not even read this bill so for you to say they are going to confiscate your property is obsurd.This bill is not going to raise your taxes in anyway .
BillyV, my income is my property and the Constitution as well as multiple SCOTUS rulings upheld this view until 1913. Absurd? Property rights are at the center of the philosophy of the American form of government. It is NOT the role of the federal government to take my property, even to finance it's limited roles. These are state and local issues, unless borders are crossed, etc.
Prosecuting laws and making them are 2 differnt things .That was not the point of the post.The orginal post made refrence to consficating property and raising taxes because of this legislation which I think is a little paranoid.
Then why has prosecuting violent crime always been a function of state governments? The federal government's job in this case is to stop states from violating people's rights. If SC is depriving women of due process rights or self-defense rights, then the federal government has cause to intervene per the 14th Amendment. But the fact a crime happened doesn't justify a new bureaucracy or a bunch of spending.
Where they get the money is a good question ,but no where does it state that taxes are going up and they will take your property .Like it or not the government does have some obligations that are paid thru taxes .The problem is they use it for everything they have no right to.
Then were will they get the Money, if not from the end user of wherever the funds come from? Which by the way is you and me the taxpayer!
I agree Maxine- this ought to be a local issue done with local funding. Unfortunately most charitable organizations are strapped because of dear leader :-(
AMEN! God bless this man, and his family. I'm sure if John Boehner wasn't busy selling out the GOP base, and watched this...I would make him cry.
Wow. that was quite emotionally charged as it should be. I applaud Rep. Gowdy whole-heartedly for his genuine passion and desire to see the right thing be done in lieu of political pandering and shinannigans. Those that do use such for political purposes should be fired and sent packing...Alas, too much to hope for in some places.
It's not their job- can conservatives just stick to the "limiting government" side please. I don't want to play these games, just stick to not empowering the Federal government. We're being conditioned to accept government intervention where it has no business and as long as we buy into this BS we are no different than the dems and are buying into the charade.
As far as I know, laws against violence only affect people who commit violence. They don't make it illegal to not commit violence. It is in fact the government's job to prevent violence against innocent people, and this law intervenes in exactly no one's lives. To say that this law is "government intervention" is to say that capitalism is government intervention, because capitalism protects property rights from violence.
Though I do not disagree with the spirit of what you're saying, Oz.. it is my understanding that the role the feds play in this particular platform is a monetary one, unless such a time the crime crosses state lines? I need to do more research admittedly. Ultimately, though...I believe this to be a program/just cause that as a tax-payer, I don't mind having at all. It's going to be a shame when, invariably, these monies shall be diverted for some other unjust cause by some establishment hack!