Obama refused to support rape victims

Bfgrn said:
You are still avoiding my questions. I suspect the reason for your obfuscation is you are smart enough to KNOW how rapists are caught, prosecuted and convicted. The TRUTH is Dixie, there is no way for a rapist to be caught, prosecuted and convicted WITHOUT burdening a rape victim with requirements like invasive tests and examinations. And no rapist is prosecuted for rape everyday in Illinois, WITHOUT these provisions (invasive tests and examinations) being met.
Click to expand...

Again... the legislation we are discussing has nothing to do with prosecution or conviction.
 
Dixie said:
The legislation in question here, is to protect rape victims from public disclosure AFTER CONVICTION!

(This would be AFTER the rapist had been prosecuted and convicted.)
Click to expand...

OK Dixie, everyone can see what your tactics are. You refuse to answer my question because you know the only way for a rapist to be caught, prosecuted and convicted is to burden a rape victim with requirements like invasive tests and examinations. And no rapist is prosecuted for rape everyday in Illinois, WITHOUT these provisions (invasive tests and examinations) being met.
 
Bfgrn said:
OK Dixie, everyone can see what your tactics are. You refuse to answer my question because you know the only way for a rapist to be caught, prosecuted and convicted is to burden a rape victim with requirements like invasive tests and examinations. And no rapist is prosecuted for rape everyday in Illinois, WITHOUT these provisions (invasive tests and examinations) being met.
Click to expand...

Well Obama's bill didn't get signed, it was vetoed, the version without the mandates and burdens on the victim DID get signed and is the current law of the land in Illinois. I don't think rapists are going scott-free in the state, do you? Again, this legislation has nothing to do with prosecution and conviction, it is about what can happen AFTER that has occurred. It simply doesn't matter with regard to prosecution and conviction, whether EITHER version was passed or not.

You want to make it about that, because that is how dishonest you are.
 
Dixie said:
Well Obama's bill didn't get signed, it was vetoed, the version without the mandates and burdens on the victim DID get signed and is the current law of the land in Illinois. I don't think rapists are going scott-free in the state, do you? Again, this legislation has nothing to do with prosecution and conviction, it is about what can happen AFTER that has occurred. It simply doesn't matter with regard to prosecution and conviction, whether EITHER version was passed or not.

You want to make it about that, because that is how dishonest you are.
Click to expand...

You are projecting Dixie. I am not being dishonest about anything, you are. As a father, I am genuinely concerned about rape victims and that too many rape victims submit to invasive tests and examinations, only to have the tests and examinations put on a shelf by law enforcement agencies and not properly analyzed and acted upon. That adds insult to injury, and it allows rapists to get off scott-free. But that doesn't seem to be your concern at all Dixie. You are only concerned with degrading President Obama.

You won't even admit that the House bill had the identical language of the bill the State Senator Obama co-sponsored. Why? Because if you did, the premise of your thread would be invalid.
 
Bfgrn said:
That is only HALF of the bill Obama co-sponsored Dixie. The other half is IDENTICAL to the House bill. So the TRUTH is, the bill Obama co-sponsored offered MORE support and protection for rape victims than the House bill.

SO...your premise 'Obama refused to support rape victims' is total BULLSHIT. You are a disingenuous piece of shit Dixie....some things never change...
Click to expand...

So.... why did he vote present on the House version?
 
Read your own links to the two bills, Bfoon. Obama's version protects rapists at the expense of rape victims. The version signed into law, protects rape victims and ensures their rights to privacy. Obama did not support that version, he was the ONLY Senator to vote "present" and go on record as not supporting it. That's not dishonest, that's the facts. You continue to want to insist the bills were the same, but that's just not true, and doesn't even make rational sense. What is the difference? The difference is, Obama's version mandated the victim be subjected to mandatory tests and the information turned over to law enforcement without their consent. His rationale was supported by Human Rights Watch, an organization devoted to protecting rights of the criminally accused... (not rape victims, but rapists.)
 
I guess Dixie is more interested in current events selectively.
 
Bfgrn said:
OK Dixie. Please answer a few questions that require explanations.

1) How would the proposed bill "help" rapists?
Click to expand...
It incentivizes those who do not wish to submit to tests to lie about causality so that they are not forced to endure a further violation enforced by the government on their body.

2) How are rapists caught, prosecuted and convicted Dixie? Please explain what evidence is needed to take rapists off the street and how that evidence is gathered?

I'll be waiting Dixie...balls in your court...
Click to expand...

Evidence is gathered through the regular means, however the rights of the victim are protected. In this new law they'll be forced to undergo testing they may believe increases their sense of violation. The government forces them to endure what they may not wish to endure.

It seems strange that people who are upset about an ultrasound that they may have to take before they abort would champion this...
 
Dixie said:
Read your own links to the two bills, Bfoon. Obama's version protects rapists at the expense of rape victims. The version signed into law, protects rape victims and ensures their rights to privacy. Obama did not support that version, he was the ONLY Senator to vote "present" and go on record as not supporting it. That's not dishonest, that's the facts. You continue to want to insist the bills were the same, but that's just not true, and doesn't even make rational sense. What is the difference? The difference is, Obama's version mandated the victim be subjected to mandatory tests and the information turned over to law enforcement without their consent. His rationale was supported by Human Rights Watch, an organization devoted to protecting rights of the criminally accused... (not rape victims, but rapists.)
Click to expand...

WOW Dixie, you are turning the possibility of an adult discussion into a childish and ignorant rant on your part. HOW does Obama's version protects rapists at the expense of rape victims?
 
Damocles said:
It incentivizes those who do not wish to submit to tests to lie about causality so that they are not forced to endure a further violation enforced by the government on their body.



Evidence is gathered through the regular means, however the rights of the victim are protected. In this new law they'll be forced to undergo testing they may believe increases their sense of violation. The government forces them to endure what they may not wish to endure.

It seems strange that people who are upset about an ultrasound that they may have to take before they abort would champion this...
Click to expand...

Well Damo, let's take a different look at the provision with some important considerations.

1) Is rape solely a private crime, or a public crime? Should there be any consideration for possible future victims by allowing a rapist to get away with the crime, 'this time'?

2) From an angle that a conservative 'should' endorse: If a female knew that accusing someone of 'rape' would mandate invasive tests and examinations, if would stop any frivolous cases where a 'rape' accusation is used as reprisal.
 
Bfgrn said:
Well Damo, let's take a different look at the provision with some important considerations.

1) Is rape solely a private crime, or a public crime? Should there be any consideration for possible future victims by allowing a rapist to get away with the crime, 'this time'?

2) From an angle that a conservative 'should' endorse: If a female knew that accusing someone of 'rape' would mandate invasive tests and examinations, if would stop any frivolous cases where a 'rape' accusation is used as reprisal.
Click to expand...

Why did Obama vote present?
 
Ever notice a tendency by JPP righties to dismiss Bush-era events as "ancient history"?

Yet here we're reaching back to 1999...
 
\\((|))// said:
Ever notice a tendency by JPP righties to dismiss Bush-era events as "ancient history"?

Yet here we're reaching back to 1999...
Click to expand...

Just like you JPP lefties dismissed Clinton era events as "ancient history" such as

Clintons recession
Clintons refusal to get Bin Laden
etc......
 
\\((|))// said:
Ever notice a tendency by JPP righties to dismiss Bush-era events as "ancient history"?

Yet here we're reaching back to 1999...
Click to expand...

Just like you JPP lefties dismissed Clinton era events as "ancient history" such as

Clintons recession
Clintons refusal to get Bin Laden
etc......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top