Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 48 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-07-2012, 06:22 PM   #706
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:57 AM
(AP)WASHINGTON — The Obama administration says it is expanding the FBI's more than eight-decade-old definition of rape to reflect a better understanding of the crime and to broaden protections.

The new definition counts men as victims for the first time and drops the requirement that victims must have physically resisted their attackers.

Vice President Joe Biden, author of the Violence Against Women Act when he was in the Senate, said the new definition announced Friday is a victory for women and men "whose suffering has gone unaccounted for over 80 years." Calling rape a "devastating crime," the vice president said, "We can't solve it unless we know the full extent of it."

The change will increase the number of people counted as rape victims in FBI statistics but will not change federal or state laws or alter charges or prosecutions. It's an important shift because lawmakers and policymakers use crime statistics to allocate money and other resources for prevention and victim assistance.

The White House said the expanded definition has been long awaited as many states and research groups made similar changes in their definitions of rape over recent decades.

Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required. The Justice Department said the new definition mirrors the majority of state rape statutes now on the books.

Congress approved $592 million this year to address violence against women, including sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, under the Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Of that amount, $23 million goes to a sexual assault services program and $39 million to a rape prevention and education program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Obama administration had sought $777 million to combat violence against women.

The change likely will result in big increases in the number of reported rapes, but it was not immediately clear how big. To take just one example of how the FBI totals will change, Chicago didn't report any rapes to the FBI for 2010 because its broad definition of the crime didn't match the FBI's narrow definition.

The change has been sought by women's groups for more than a decade.

The Women's Law Project, on behalf of more than 80 sexual assault coalitions and national organizations concerned about violence against women, wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller in 2001 that the narrow definition reflected gender-based stereotypes and requested it be changed.

Using the old definition, a total of 84,767 rapes were reported nationwide in 2010, according to the FBI's uniform crime report based on data from 18,000 law enforcement agencies.

Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in the U.S. have been raped at some time in their lives, according to a 2010 survey by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which used a broader definition.

The revised FBI definition says that rape is "the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object," without the consent of the victim. Also constituting rape under the new definition is "oral penetration by a sex organ of another person" without consent.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:47 PM   #707
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Better late than never
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-07-2012, 07:15 PM   #708
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
do you even know what a far-left ideologue is?
Yes.



And I'm a right-wing ideologue which is why we respectably disagree on damn near everything.

Quote:
your definitions of left and right are very, very, very skewed. Sotomayor and Kagan are hardly left-wing equivalents of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito. and that's just to begin.
Sometimes it's painfully obvious that you're a Beltway denizen.

Quote:
anyway, here you go:
I heard that Reagan quote during the one of the recent tax standoffs in Washington. Arguing for a tax code free of "unproductive tax loopholes" and "fairness" isn't liberal really. Reagan's tax laws of the mid 80's got rid of volumes of the things. (You used to be able to write off credit card interest for example.)

Anyway, if you want to single out a Republican, as opposed to something as radical as FDR's Second Bill of Rights or speeches about his National Recovery Administrators, I'd go with Richard Nixon's 1971 speech:

"I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States for a period of 90 days."
He also took us off the gold standard with that speech by the way.

Quote:
a wash involves the decimation of Al Qaeda, the assassination of Bin Laden, the further weakening of Iran, the end of the Iraq debacle, the lead-from-behind success in Libya, the end of Afghanistan in sight, and the fact that people actually like the US again after 8 years of the most drunk, insane, stupid foreign policy we've ever had?

the only real "failure" he's had is preventing the Likud Party from leading Israel into madness.

you'll notice that the GOP is staying far, far away from foreign policy because, 1) most of them don't know a thing about it, and 2) they know that Obama's record is virtually unimpeachable. they have nothing to offer but China Panic and saber rattles.
You could argue that his success in preventing terrorist attacks here stems from his 180 on Gitmo, the Patriot Act and many other Bush policies he campaigned against. And congressional Republicans have largely supported the president in his duties as commander-in-chief. Most of his critics are your liberals friends you mentioned in an earlier post that are furious with the successes you list above.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 02:05 AM   #709
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Yes.



And I'm a right-wing ideologue which is why we respectably disagree on damn near everything.

oh okay.




Quote:
Sometimes it's painfully obvious that you're a Beltway denizen.

you mean "informed"? i don't work in politics. my job is profoundly apolitical and deeply populist and dedicated to turning profits for large corporations. i really should be in NYC or LA but have found a niche here in DC. i'd hold these opinions if i lived anywhere else. i don't buy this "inside the Beltway" crap, nor do i buy "San Francisco values" or any other anti-elitist-but-yet-quite-elitist right wing slurs that people who live inside the Beltway concoct and pass out to their suburban and rural consumers in order to flatter their audience.

what happens in DC, however, is that people do tend to be quite informed, and you have to know what you're talking about should you engage politicos in conversation, either left or right wing, and most of them don't particularly like to talk shop with civilians. but what remains is that people inside the Beltway actually do know how politics works, they know how the game is played, they know all the inside baseball stats you'd like to think you know because you read a few blogs. and that's neither right nor left.

that said, what i said is, in fact, true: the right and the left are not equivalents in this country.

you're free to view Obama as a closet liberal all you want. you're not free to paint him as someone somehow outside the mainstream. need we remind you -- the individual mandate was a Republican idea as recent as the 1990s. your front runner, need we remind you, pursued an individual mandate for the citizens of Massachusetts.

this idea that Obama is somehow a radical or ideologue or trying to turn America into Scandinavia anything like the snooty caricature in those cartoons you post is the biggest paranoid fantasy since Hillary supposedly had Vince Foster killed.


Quote:
You could argue that his success in preventing terrorist attacks here stems from his 180 on Gitmo, the Patriot Act and many other Bush policies he campaigned against. And congressional Republicans have largely supported the president in his duties as commander-in-chief. Most of his critics are your liberals friends you mentioned in an earlier post that are furious with the successes you list above.

some ideologue, right?

the phrase "furious" is wonderful. whatever you need to paint the opposition with.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:46 AM   #710
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 12:57 AM
furious dolchstoss liberals!
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 01:31 PM   #711
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
a lot of people in here ( and elsewhere) seem to be baffled by this

Obama signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012


I don't get that at all.

what was he supposed to do? veto it?
Yes. You do not sign a bill carrying those provisions into law. You VETO it. Even though it could be overturned. You VETO it on principle. You do not issue a statement saying you don't support a law you signed in with your own signature.

You also don't make signing statements to circumvent Congressional authority when you criticized the previous presidents for doing so.

"[I]t is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law"

Right. Either way, looks bad. Just VETO it. Then make a speech explaining to Americans why you are following through with your oath to protect the Constitution.
__________________
Moser is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:06 PM   #712
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 AM
a bill that passed 99 to 1?

that veto will be over-ridden probably 100 to 1

it is a very large bill, with many, many components, was it even up against a dead-line that would have shut down the military?

so with the veto, any election that is close, goes to the GOP and we have super majorities in both the House and Senate after Nov election and a better chance for a GOP President

for a worthless, principle stand that would mean nothing, a President has to be smart enough to know what battles to fight and when.

Perhaps many would have liked Obama to end DADT on day one, in January 2009? Also, recognize a Palestinian State, and appoint all of his Judicial appointments as recess appointments, because the GOP will not let them have an up or down vote?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:42 PM   #713
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 04:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
a bill that passed 99 to 1?

that veto will be over-ridden probably 100 to 1

it is a very large bill, with many, many components, was it even up against a dead-line that would have shut down the military?

so with the veto, any election that is close, goes to the GOP and we have super majorities in both the House and Senate after Nov election and a better chance for a GOP President

for a worthless, principle stand that would mean nothing, a President has to be smart enough to know what battles to fight and when.

Perhaps many would have liked Obama to end DADT on day one, in January 2009? Also, recognize a Palestinian State, and appoint all of his Judicial appointments as recess appointments, because the GOP will not let them have an up or down vote?
I'm sorry, but I disagree. You don't have to rewrite a whole bill. VETO it on grounds of the unconstitutional provisions. I'm sure with those provisions removed, the bill would pass just fine.

It's not black and white. There is no "all or nothing" context to the passing of this bill. Passing it with a signed statement is better than no statement, but Obama now set another precedent for the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus. Another president down the line could very well take advantage and abuse this power.

The President took an oath to defend the Constitution. The allowance for the suspension of writ of habeus corpus is a very serious thing. Obama's failure to protect our liberties cannot be overlooked or shrugged off...for the sake's of a bill's passage.
__________________
Moser is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:55 PM   #714
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 AM
they would have just over ridden the veto and passed the same exact bill, with 100 % of Democrats in the Senate

the GOP would have a huge talking point the Obama is more concerned about coddling terrorists, than providing for our men and women that are dying to keep us safe, that is how it works

you may recall how Kerry got all tied up by saying he was 'for it' before he was 'against it' and then for it again.

it does not matter if he was 'more' right or not, that sank him.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:19 PM   #715
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 04:57 AM
I have serious doubts that after a presidential VETO, 100% Democrats would vote to override their Democratic president.

Talking points? What talking points? The GOP has no play when trying to defend their decision to revoke the right of writ of habeus corpus. You could accuse the president of coddling terrorists, but the president can just respond by saying this bill gives the government the right to detain any American, son or daughter, brother or sister, forever. Boom....talk about a blow to everybody's reality. GOP would have no play.

This 'it would happen anyways' attitude is dangerous.

And I don't care about some dude's re-election chances..especially when he's demonstrated this major failure in leading by example (or leading by principle as some say).

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B.F.

Or in this case, it's giving up essential liberty to lower the risk of losing votes. This country's backwards thinking nauseates me too much at times.
__________________
Moser is offline  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:38 PM   #716
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post

And I don't care about some dude's re-election chances..

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B.F.
that is what I thought, a GOP landslide with a GOP President in 2012 would do a lot of harm

and what some whore frequenter and chauvinist* said, has no bearing on politics in 2012,
except as a retreat from sound arguments, that is why an Antonin Scalia is always going on about these mediocre 'so-called' founding fathers

* “He that displays too often his wife and his wallet is in danger of having both of them borrowed” B Franklin
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-09-2012, 12:22 AM   #717
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,433
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Arguing over whether vetoing the NDAA should have happened is a sidetracking distraction, because it's based on the misconception that the main negotiation between the Legislative and Executive Branches occurs at the actual vote over the finished product.

__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 01-09-2012, 05:18 PM   #718
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Will Obama win reelection?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 04:19 PM   #719
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:57 AM
The Associated Press: Obama takes on big government: 'It has to change'

Obama is throwing government employees out on the street.

Six agencies down to one. Deregulation? The Chamber of Commerce could not be happier.


This, plus pay day tax break are GOP standard dogma.

Election politics jujitsu
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-13-2012, 04:31 PM   #720
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:57 AM
The Era Of Big Government Is Over!

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com