92 Republicans voted against a law that would prevent rape - Polidicks

[url=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36819_The_92_Republicans_Who_Voted_Against_Laws_to_Prevent_Rape]Source[/url] [url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll455.xml]Roll call[/url] [release]LGF reader SpaceJesus’s Page tells the tale of the latest strange and tawdry episode of Republican malfeasance toward women: 92 Republicans Vote Against Legislation That Will Help Prevent Rape of Native American Women. [quote] The House passed a bill that would make it easier for tribal courts with limited sovereignty and jurisdiction to prosecute non-native rapists who rape Native American women on tribal lands. There’s a huge jurisdictional mess when it comes to crimes involving natives and non-natives due to confusion between tribal, federal, and state court authority. It basically results in non-native rapists going free because it is difficult to ascertain what kind of court they should stand for trial in. This bill helps to clear some of that up, and make it so rapists can be dragged into court much easier and made to stand for their crimes when the act is committed on tribal land by a non-member. This is something pretty much anyone can get behind right? Nope. Not if you’re a conservative Republican apparently, as the only people who voted against this anti-rape legislation (all 92 of them) are card-carrying members of the GOP.[/quote] [/release] additional sources: [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re_us/us_indian_crime[/url] [url]http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/politics/Tribal-Law-and-Order-Act-to-become-law-at-cost-to-tribes-99016714.html[/url]

A better source for clarity would be nice.

They're just covering their trails. They're all secret rapists.

Typical counter-productive behavior of the party not in power.

Typical

I guess we're still putting the indians down? What is this, 1880?

Ninja'd EDIT: Broke my automerge

Republicans being ass backwards morons?, this is news?.

I'm not even gonna...

Putting "republican" in the title is kind of like saying IS LUKE'S FATHER.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23581870]I guess we're still putting the indians down? What is this, 1880?[/QUOTE] Native Americans.

so, what, I could go rape a bunch of fine ass Navajos and not be prosecuted?

not for much longer anyway

How can you be against a law like this? Just because the opposing party supports it doesn't mean you should reject it regardless of if it's right.

[QUOTE=Penguiin;23581931]so, what, I could go rape a bunch of fine ass Navajos and not be prosecuted?[/QUOTE] the republicans prob. wouldn't mind since they aren't white christians praise jesus

[QUOTE=JDK721;23581925]Native Americans.[/QUOTE] I usually call them Native American Indians, but I didn't feel like typing it out all that time. [editline]11:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=SamPerson123;23581963]How can you be against a law like this? Just because the opposing party supports it doesn't mean you should reject it regardless of if it's right.[/QUOTE] Welcome to American politics.

they're called First Nations Peoples in Canada [img]http://crossfitzone.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/the_more_you_know2.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23581970]Welcome to American politics.[/QUOTE] welcome to the GOP ideology

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;23581970] Welcome to American politics.[/QUOTE] Canadian politics can be like this to an extent [editline]09:50PM[/editline] In a issue like this they would likely vote morally though

Doesn't anyone question these types of articles? Or do people just figure they are true because they want them to be true? Terrible article to make any kind of conclusion off of.

I don't think it should come as a surprise to anyone that republicans like rape.

How would any sane person vote against this? I could understand gay marriage, but this?

[QUOTE=Pepin;23582075]Doesn't anyone question these types of articles? Or do people just figure they are true because they want them to be true? Terrible article to make any kind of conclusion off of.[/QUOTE] [url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll455.xml]Click me[/url] [editline]10:01PM[/editline] not every single republican voted against the law, but the people who did vote against it were republicans

[QUOTE=butters757;23582135]How would any sane person vote against this? I could understand gay marriage, but this?[/QUOTE] how could any sane person vote against gay marriage

The reality of this sort of thing is relative to your viewpoint. If you're a congressman, you probably voted against it outside of the context of rape, and instead in the context of jurisdiction. It makes good for news because people not in the know think this is something ridiculous, when at first glance it is, and when in-depth, politicians have can legitimate reasoning for their stance. For example, considering these lands are legally sovereign nations, why do you think the US govt. would worry about their foreign-relative laws more than their own? They don't. This is why stuff like this happens. The United States of America's legal system is always going to prioritize local law against foreign. Just like every other nation on the face of the planet. "Sovereign nations" are no different. Change this news snippet to border-rape cases for US/Mexico relations, and bam, it's the [i]same[/i] ordeal, but now you've thrown in a dash of racism, too, based on sensitive relationships already present due to an unsafe border. [editline]10:07PM[/editline] To back my statement, it's interesting that the roll call's bill is entitled, "To protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes"

For anyone who actually reads more than the headline. [url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103717296[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_725.html[/url] [url]http://www.govit.com/vote/congress.aspx?bill=2009-s-151[/url] Read the bill. What is it about? What is it called?

"To protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes" is the title

[QUOTE=amcwatters;23582276]To back my statement, it's interesting that the roll call's bill is entitled, "To protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes"[/QUOTE] You know why it is interesting? Because this bill is about giving Indians easier prosecuting power when it comes to a misrepresentation of Indian produced goods. Where does the whole part about rape involved in this? I'm not sure because the bill is pretty clear that the prosecution is about misrepresentation of Indian goods, not about sexual harassment or rape. This is why you can't trust blogs.

[QUOTE=Pepin;23582638]You know why it is interesting? Because this bill is about giving Indians easier prosecuting power when it comes to a misrepresentation of Indian produced goods. Where does the whole part about rape involved in this? I'm not sure because the bill is pretty clear that the prosecution is about misrepresentation of Indian goods, not about sexual harassment or rape. This is why you can't trust blogs.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/landmark-us-legislation-addresses-sexual-violence-against-native-women-2010-07-23]how about amnesty international[/url]

I have no opinion on this until I hear Glenn Beck's side of the story. :colbert: :v: