Republicans think workplace RAPE is OKAY.

Yurt said:
amazing how many times you ignore this question:

did she not get justice through arbitration? yes or no?
Click to expand...

NO

She got arbitration .. which is not the same as justice. She wanted her attackers convicted of their crime, not money.

If your wife/sister/mother is gang-raped .. how much are you going to ask for?
 
blackascoal said:
NO

She got arbitration .. which is not the same as justice. She wanted her attackers convicted of their crime, not money.

If your wife/sister/mother is gang-raped .. how much are you going to ask for?
Click to expand...

thanks for showing you have no idea what you're talking about in this thread....

the amendment had nothing to do with being convicted of a crime....and KBR had nothing to do with the perps being convicted of a crime....

and arbitration can be justice...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
MY RESPONSES ARE IN YOUR QUOTE...
Click to expand...

no, you lied, you made a factually false assertion, that republicans think workplace rape is ok....this wasn't even an exaggeration, it wasn't even close to the truth....and i see you can't be honest and admit that according to your logic in the other thread you lied....

and sexual assault is not always rape

thank you for admitting that it is doubtful whether they could pursue a "civil" claim in court vs. an arbiter will stop rape....this only proves that it is a lie that republicans think workplace rape is ok....the amendment doesn't make rape legal, and if it was solely about rape, why add in all the other issues? why not make the amendment solely about rape? the republicans most likely didn't support the amendment due to the other issues and the fact that scotus has upheld such clauses....but as i said, i don't support the clauses as most of the time they are inherently unfair and IMO, contracts of adhesion...

and do you have proof KBR tried to brush this under the rug? the arbitration clause was agreed to BEFORE the rape.....how you got to this illogical leap is beyond me....

and since you can't say whether or not she got justice under arbitration, you're jumping to conclusions and could flat out be wrong that she wasn't justly compensated.....
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Wrong again.

Republicans are FOR DOING BUSINESS with companies who force their female employees into arbitration if an allegation of rape is made.

Why would a law-abiding, patriotic company like KBR NOT want to bring in law enforcement to determine whether an employee is guilty of rape?
Click to expand...


Employers are doing this more and more. No one put a gun to her head. She signed it upon her employment, if she did not agree, she could have found another job somewhere else.
 
blackascoal said:
NO

She got arbitration .. which is not the same as justice. She wanted her attackers convicted of their crime, not money.

If your wife/sister/mother is gang-raped .. how much are you going to ask for?
Click to expand...
Even with her signing forms they could not exempt themselves from criminal law. If she had the evidence they could convict those who perpetrated the crime.

In this case she could bring the case to arbitration rather than a lawsuit (neither of which would effect the criminal side of law), she signed papers to that effect. Was she able to get any form of retribution through arbitration?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well knock me down with a feather, I never would ahve guessed...

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. 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.

He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html
Click to expand...

not your lie zappo.....but this is a lie....her own testimony states she was locked in a regular trailer....

another lie for huffpo
 
webbway said:
Employers are doing this more and more. No one put a gun to her head. She signed it upon her employment, if she did not agree, she could have found another job somewhere else.
Click to expand...

technically, you're absolutely right....

i would argue though, that some contracts, even though freely and willingly entered into are void as a matter of law....that is what this amendment was trying to do....however, the crafty dems knew that by making the bill much more broad than sexual assault, they could later lie and claim, as zappygetard has done, that republicans voted to okay rape in the workplace.....the dems let politics rule the day and they fucked those who they claimed they were trying to protect
 
Yurt said:
not your lie zappo.....but this is a lie....her own testimony states she was locked in a regular trailer....

another lie for huffpo
Click to expand...

Assuming you are right...

You're actually going to call that a lie? A lie implies an intent to deceive. That detail is not really going to have much impact on anyone's perception of the story.
 
RStringfield said:
Assuming you are right...

You're actually going to call that a lie? A lie implies an intent to deceive. That detail is not really going to have much impact on anyone's perception of the story.
Click to expand...

fair enough....i don't know their intent....but a "shipping" container....they knew or should have known that was false....thus, a lie by nonfeasance if you will.....and it is easily verifiable that it is not true....
 
Not that it really matters, but later in testimony, she says...

Once State Department officials (Matthew McCormick and Heidi McMichael) saved me from the container, I was taken to the cafeteria because I was hungry and thirsty.
 
RStringfield said:
Not that it really matters, but later in testimony, she says...

Once State Department officials (Matthew McCormick and Heidi McMichael) saved me from the container, I was taken to the cafeteria because I was hungry and thirsty.
Click to expand...

it does matter....read what she said before that...

and nowhere does it say "shipping" container....

These men then took me to a trailer and then locked me in with two armed guards
(Ghurka’s) outside my door. I was placed into this trailer, and not allowed to leave.
Click to expand...
 
Container/trailer are often used interchangeably, though trailer kind of implies wheels. It does not appear she was in a mobile home.
 
I said it does not matter cause it does not change the story dramatically. They could have locked her in a penthouse apartment and it would not change the fact that they restrained her against her will.
 
RStringfield said:
Container/trailer are often used interchangeably, though trailer kind of implies wheels. It does not appear she was in a mobile home.
Click to expand...

RStringfield said:
I said it does not matter cause it does not change the story dramatically. They could have locked her in a penthouse apartment and it would not change the fact that they restrained her against her will.
Click to expand...

so you don't think there is a difference between shipping container and trailer? since you followed the link i gave, you saw the picture of the trailers (first page, though no page numbers) she was shown she would live in and how she distinguished a trailer from barracks.....

if KBR stuffed her in a shipping container, quite a different story...IMO....not as to the bill....but as to how she was treated
 
 
I don't see any indication that the trailer she thought she was going to live in is what they locked her in. And it may well have been a converted shipping container. They are sometimes modified for cheap living/work spaces.

To me, the important point was that they locked her up and denied her contact with the outside world.

Yurt said:
if the link i provided is true....the above links are merely false story copycats....

the link i have is:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/Jones071219.pdf
Click to expand...

No, they are not copycats. In many they indicate that SHE said it was a shipping container. If anyone is lying then it would have to be her.
 
RStringfield said:
I don't see any indication that the trailer she thought she was going to live in is what they locked her in. And it may well have been a converted shipping container. They are sometimes modified for cheap living/work spaces.

To me, the important point was that they locked her up and denied her contact with the outside world.



No, they are not copycats. In many they indicate that SHE said it was a shipping container. If anyone is lying then it would have to be her.
Click to expand...

yes.....thats it....she is lying....then this whole story is BS.....

you also don't see any indication that she was locked up in a shipping container....but you want to argue that she was.....you said it was no big deal, yet here you are making a big deal about it....

let me again refer you to her supposed testimony from the same link you want to hang your hat on that she was in a shipping container:

These men then took me to a trailer and then locked me in with two armed guards
(Ghurka’s) outside my door. I was placed into this trailer, and not allowed to leave.
Click to expand...

At some point while I was imprisoned, (I am unable to pinpoint the time exactly),
Jamie Armstrong, from KBR came to my trailer
Click to expand...

and lets show the entire context of your one sentence.....

Once State Department officials (Matthew McCormick and Heidi McMichael)
saved me from the container, I was taken to the cafeteria because I was hungry and
thirsty. I ate some Kiwi. I was feeling very ill from the effects of the drug. I was going
to be put into a “safe” trailer, and I requested that Heidi stay with me. She did.
Click to expand...

notice how safe is in quotes and container is used only once, whereas, trailor is used nearly a half dozen times.....
 
No, I am not making a big deal of it. Just pointing out that, my guess is she may have been using the words interchangeably.

I am not omnipotent nor am I witness to any of the facts. For all I know, she may have never been in Iraq, worked for Haliburton or ever had a Kiwi. That's what the courts are for.

Your point was that the Huffington Post lied. I don't see any reason to believe that.

I will say, they should have prefaced the statements in the first paragraph with "She claims."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top