Republicans think workplace RAPE is OKAY.

[PostmodernProphet]

Yurt, you're easily the biggest hack on the board for defending votes against PROSECUTING RAPE.

amazing....ibbie has just managed to show how little he understands this issue and escalated ignorance to new heights.....this has nothing at all to do with criminal prosecutions......nothing....at.....all.......

 

[NOVA]

post 28....

and please point out the language in the bill that deals with rape

And of course, you're right Yurt....

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html

Stewart, the left wing big mouth slimmer and spinner for the Democrats loves to mask the REAL ISSUE as always....and the Koolade drinkers that refuse to think for themselves, lap it up....
NOWHERE in Frankens Amendment is there any mention of rape or any sort of criminal prosecution for any alleged crime...

 

[zappasguitar]

post 28....

and please point out the language in the bill that deals with rape

"Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen."

 

[TuTu Monroe]

did you even your link....it is about the law....



the issue about law enforcement, again from your link....was because it was outside of US criminal jurisdiction, so once again, you're lying that they did not bring in law enforcement, they couldn't. and as i said, it was not about rape, it is about giving corps the power to have employees give up the right to sue and instead accept binding arbitration. scotus has ruled this costitutional....you really need to read your link closer and if you have, you're flat out lying that republicans okay'd rape....

and you still haven't answered my question:

did she not get justice from the arbitration?

Yep, zappa's title was very misleading and a lie, but hey, this is the only way he can get the attttention he craves.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

"Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen."

please point out language in the amendment or bill that mentions rape....franken's babbling does not take away the fact that the amendment was about all arbitration clauses....i've looked at the amendment and bill and can't find where it mentions rape, perhaps you can show me the error of my ways.....

and according to scotus, you wrong on the DP claim....they fully contracted away their right to court and will get legal redress through an arbiter.


still can't answer my questions...i wonder why

post 28 again:

i already said i don't support the arbitration clauses....

you lied when you said republicans okay'd workplace rape....this has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with arbitration clauses....so tell me....even if they changed the law regarding arbitration clauses, are you actually claiming that would have stopped this rape and any other potential future rapes????

you still have yet to answer me on whether she recieved justice without the ability to sue....why is that?

 

[Damocles]

I'd like to see the full text of the Amendment to see if there was something to object to other than the lawsuits.

 

[Timshel]

"Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen."

Dude, the victim does not take criminal charges to court. They have no real say. That's up to the sovereign, represented by a DA, that has jurisdiction. The DA might consider the victims wishes, but it is ultimately the choice of the DA. But, there is no DA that can bring criminal charges in this case. The contract has nothing to with that.

From HuffPost which covered it...

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.

This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue.

Yurt is correct on this point and there is no doubt about it. You can argue that all you like, but you are clearly wrong and continuing to argue it only makes you appear foolish and stubborn.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'd like to see the full text of the Amendment to see if there was something to object to other than the lawsuits.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111E827rn

the bill does mention sexual assaut....which i presume rape would fall under...

but it goes much further and is really not just about rape as the title falsely claims...

contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

the amentmdment's purpose does not mention rape or sexual assault at all....

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.


by mentioning kbr by name....it comes close to a bill of attainder

 

[zappasguitar]

And of course, you're right Yurt....

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html

Stewart, the left wing big mouth slimmer and spinner for the Democrats loves to mask the REAL ISSUE as always....and the Koolade drinkers that refuse to think for themselves, lap it up....
NOWHERE in Frankens Amendment is there any mention of rape or any sort of criminal prosecution for any alleged crime...

But everyone know WHY this amendment was introduced.

A woman was gang raped by her co-workers, and KBR, the humanitarian corporation that they are, refused to allow the courts decide whether the victim was owed any monetary recompense for her assault.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

But everyone know WHY this amendment was introduced.

A woman was gang raped by her co-workers, and KBR, the humanitarian corporation that they are, refused to allow the courts decide whether the victim was owed any monetary recompense for her assault.

amazing how many times you ignore this question:

did she not get justice through arbitration? yes or no?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

then you should have no trouble coming up with quotes or footage of republicans saying workplace rape is okay.....

i'll wait....

 

[zappasguitar]

then you should have no trouble coming up with quotes or footage of republicans saying workplace rape is okay.....

i'll wait....

see post #17.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

see post #17.

more lies....and i am not surprised you continally ignore my questions re: would this bill stop rape and did she get justice from the arbitration...

and thanks for proving you lied by not being able to show one quote or any footage of republicans saying they think workplace rape is ok....you proved yourself a liar with your own little gotcha game....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

see post #17.

more lies....and i am not surprised you continally ignore my questions re: would this bill stop rape and did she get justice from the arbitration...

and thanks for proving you lied by not being able to show one quote or any footage of republicans saying they think workplace rape is ok....you proved yourself a liar with your own little gotcha game....

 

[zappasguitar]

more lies....and i am not surprised you continally ignore my questions re: would this bill stop rape and did she get justice from the arbitration...

and thanks for proving you lied by not being able to show one quote or any footage of republicans saying they think workplace rape is ok....you proved yourself a liar with your own little gotcha game....

You expect an answer from me, yet you won't even treat me with the same courtesy you expect from me?

I asked you first, why would 30 REPUBLICANS vote against the Franken amendment?

But I understand, you can't answer. To do so would reveal you made a mistake. And you simply will not do that...ever.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Equally ridiculous.

They reported on a legislative vote .. EASILY validated or refuted.

"US" did nothing but express partisan mindfuck.

I didn't say it couldn't be independantly validated or that it was wrong. I said that Mz. Huffington, as a partisan, is lacking in credibility as an objective observer. That is an accurate statement.

The same can be said about the WSJ article by Karl Rove today.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You expect an answer from me, yet you won't even treat me with the same courtesy you expect from me?

I asked you first, why would 30 REPUBLICANS vote against the Franken amendment?

But I understand, you can't answer. To do so would reveal you made a mistake. And you simply will not do that...ever.

i can't speak for them....and if you want to act like a fucking child, i actually asked my question first....go back and read the thread

if i had an opinion it is because they support arbitration clauses and as i have shown you the bill is more than just about sexual assault and does not mention rape....if it was solely about rape you might have a point about them not being for the worker, but it is not and it is a flat out lie to go from not supporting the worker to thinking workplace rape is ok....that is flat out lie and you know it

now lets see you man up and answer the questions and be honest that since you can't provide a single quote or footage of republicans saying the think workplace rape is okay, that according to YOUR logic in the other thread, you lied....

here are the questions again:

post 28 again:

i already said i don't support the arbitration clauses....

you lied when you said republicans okay'd workplace rape....this has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with arbitration clauses....so tell me....even if they changed the law regarding arbitration clauses, are you actually claiming that would have stopped this rape and any other potential future rapes????

you still have yet to answer me on whether she recieved justice without the ability to sue....why is that?

 

[Timshel]

I didn't say it couldn't be independantly validated or that it was wrong. I said that Mz. Huffington, as a partisan, is lacking in credibility as an objective observer. That is an accurate statement.

The same can be said about the WSJ article by Karl Rove today.

Nah, Rove's article was largely opinion and speculation. There was none of that in the HuffPost article.

 

[zappasguitar]

i can't speak for them....and if you want to act like a fucking child, i actually asked my question first....go back and read the thread I'LL IGNORE YOUR LITTLE VERBAL ATTACK BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A GOOD AFTERNOON AND I'VE HAD FUN...TO HELP DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN US, I'M GOING TO USE ALLCAPS IF YOU DON'T MIND...MORE BELOW...

if i had an opinion it is because they support arbitration clauses...NOW WAS THAT SO HARD AFTER ALL?

and as i have shown you the bill is more than just about sexual assault..."SEXUAL ASSAULT" ISN'T CONSIDERED RAPE? and does not mention rape....if it was solely about rape you might have a point about them not being for the worker, but it is not and it is a flat out lieOR JUST HYPERBOLE...LIKE YOU UTILIZE SO OFTEN... to go from not supporting the worker to thinking workplace rape is ok....that is flat out lie and you know it...ISN'T HYPERBOLE A WONDERFUL THING? IT ALLOWS BUT ULTIMATELY, IT ADVANCES THE DISCUSSION NOT A WHIT.

now lets see you man up and answer the questions and be honest that since you can't provide a single quote or footage of republicans saying the think workplace rape is okay, that according to YOUR logic in the other thread, you lied....

here are the questions again:

post 28 again: i already said i don't support the arbitration clauses....

you lied when you said republicans okay'd workplace rape....NO, I EXAGGERATED, JUST LIKE YOU HAVE NUMEROUS TIMES...this has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with arbitration clauses....THE REASON THE ARBITRATION CLAUSES ARE BEING REVISITED IS BECAUSE A WOMAN WAS RAPED, SO IN A WAY IT IS ABOUT RAPE...so tell me....even if they changed the law regarding arbitration clauses, are you actually claiming that would have stopped this rape and any other potential future rapes???? DOUBTFUL, BUT GIVING VICTIMS ANOTHER AVENUE TO PERSUE RECOMPENSE IN THE EVENT HIS/HER EMPLOYER TRIES TO SWEEP SOMETHING UNDER THE RUG IS A GOOD THING. CAN YOU THINK OF ANOTHER REASON BESIDES PARTISAN POLITICS WHY THOSE CONGRESSMEN VOTED NO?

you still have yet to answer me on whether she recieved justice without the ability to sue....why is that? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT FOR ME TO DECIDE. YOU'D HAVE TO ASK HER.

MY RESPONSES ARE IN YOUR QUOTE...