RE: New bill needed for rape

RE: New bill needed for rape (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:18:24 AM)
politically thats the compromise, take out haliburton, leave the rest, and it is the same bill. Putting Haliburton in there helps to insure that it is gonna get alot of press. Good politics. So, now the political question is, 'Oh, so if I take Haliburton out by name, you will vote for it, right?' C'mon it is stage managed politics at its apex. Ron

DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:21:07 AM)
I'm still trying to figure out why any senator would vote against this bill? This is a very nasty campaign ad waiting to happen. Beyond of course it being completely outrageous that any company would have an employment contract that prevented an employee from suing after being gang raped by her co workers and superior.

Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the GOP senators thought it was a bill of attainder, as it would be if it singled out Halliburton and KBR, then they would have voted for it confident that Halliburton's lawyers could get it tossed. So clearly they don't think it is a bill of attainder. This may have escaped you, but I have not been speculating on what those senators may have thought, or, unlike yourself, presuming to announce what they didn't think. I have been addressing the bill's wording, which clearly does single out Halliburton for mention. And, I have been questioning why it wasn't simply written in a way that unambiguously says what it is intended to mean. I don't actually know why those senators voted against it. But I am sure that the vote would have been unanimous if it had been worded differently. And if it hadn't passed, I am sure that a differently worded bill would have replaced it in short order, and passed unanimously. K.

Moonhead -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:40:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm still trying to figure out why any senator would vote against this bill? This is a very nasty campaign ad waiting to happen. Beyond of course it being completely outrageous that any company would have an employment contract that prevented an employee from suing after being gang raped by her co workers and superior. I find the thought that an employment contract can actually specify that completely repulsive.

Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find the thought that an employment contract can actually specify that completely repulsive. I wholeheartedly agree. And I also think that playing political games with the bill by wording it like that (per Ron's comment above) is completely repulsive. K.

Thadius -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:01:11 AM)
While I do appreciate the seriousness of the topic in which the title of the attached article describes the bill; I actually went in and started reading the actual text of the amendment. Sure rape would be covered by the proposed changes, and yes the changes to call out one particular contractor, its subcontractors, at all tiers.... but what isn't mentioned in the rest of that article is what else is covered in the proposed amendment. quote: Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the 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. [Page: S10070] (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States. Just curious, don't most union contracts require such arbitration, specifically for the portions I underlined above? Note It seems the language has been changed to remove the mention of Haliburton et al.

DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:10:36 AM)
For negligent hiring, supervision or retention? No. Why would a union care if a company got sued for failing to do due diligence before hiring someone or failing to properly supervise employess or allowing people who should be fired for cause to remain at work? That clause doesn't say the employee does or doesn't get binding arbitration if the contractor wants to fire him but that the employment contract can't forbid another employee from suing if the contractor negligently hires rapists or fails to adequtely supervise employees so gang rapes don't happen on company property and time or if the company fails to fire a gang of rapists who shoved their victim in a crate to keep her from reporting her assault.

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:11:14 AM)
The woman was an employee of KRB. As such, upon signing on, there was, in the fine print, a clause she didnt know about till she was rescued by a Republican Senator U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex. It wasnt till she was back home that she discovered her accusations of rape, among other accusations, could not be heard in court, but had to go through arbitration. KRB and Halliburton have since parted ways. But, it seems that Jones wasnt just an isolated case. Hers was just the most vocal. It never should have had to go to court for a new bill. Rape, false imprisonment, threats and such are illegal acts, covered by their own laws. Yet, she was not able to bring any action to court because this was a defense contractor and it was binding by her signature. Now, this issue has become a moot point. Who would have thought such a clause would ever be inserted into a defence contract to begin with??? What WILL hurt the republican party is the nay votes come election days. Especially considering the backing this bill had ... The amendment was supported by a number of Minnesota organizations including Advocates for Human Rights, Breaking Free, Casa de Esperanza, Mid Minnesota Legal Assistance, the Minnesota Coalition against Sexual Assault, the Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource Center, the Minnesota Indian Women’s Sexual Assault Coalition, the Minnesota National Organization for Women, Minnesota Women Lawyers and the Sexual Violence Center.... and this was just in Minnesotta. Buckle up gentlemen... this is gonna be one insane election year.

popeye1250 -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:13:47 AM)
I wonder if this will include "U.N." "peacekeepers too? U.S. Taxdollars pay for one third of that B.S.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:20:39 AM)
I see it as political theater as well. From s strategic view, leave Halliburton in, and then run negative campaigns against anyone that opposed it by saying "they oppose a law that protects rape victims", and any explanation afterwards will be drowned out. The people at the top are not idiots, it is just we do not always know why they do the things they do, until it is revealed. Political theater is about wagging the dog, and sleight of hand. We should be so proud of the officials we elected into office. I would like to show them some of the mountains where my Mom's people grew up. There are some holes up there that no one has seen the bottom of alive. Why else would they have included the specific name of a company in the actual bill? quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail politically thats the compromise, take out haliburton, leave the rest, and it is the same bill. Putting Haliburton in there helps to insure that it is gonna get alot of press. Good politics. So, now the political question is, 'Oh, so if I take Haliburton out by name, you will vote for it, right?' C'mon it is stage managed politics at its apex. Ron

Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Note It seems the language has been changed to remove the mention of Haliburton et al. Interesting. But the date of that language appears to be October 1st, which makes the "purpose" statement previously quoted smell like bait. And at this point, I guess it's fair to say that it hooked a bunch of sure-to-be-sorry fish. K.

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:27:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I see it as political theater as well. From s strategic view, leave Halliburton in, and then run negative campaigns against anyone that opposed it by saying "they oppose a law that protects rape victims", and any explanation afterwards will be drowned out. The people at the top are not idiots, it is just we do not always know why they do the things they do, until it is revealed. Political theater is about wagging the dog, and sleight of hand. We should be so proud of the officials we elected into office. I would like to show them some of the mountains where my Mom's people grew up. There are some holes up there that no one has seen the bottom of alive. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail politically thats the compromise, take out haliburton, leave the rest, and it is the same bill. Putting Haliburton in there helps to insure that it is gonna get alot of press. Good politics. So, now the political question is, 'Oh, so if I take Haliburton out by name, you will vote for it, right?' C'mon it is stage managed politics at its apex. Ron growing up, we moved on and off military bases, in and out of the north to the south, then back north again. People in the north used to talk in hushed tones about the mobs and the Union Bosses. My grandfather would always smile and tell us... you dont have to worry about them. You need to worry about Bubba and his friends taking you on a hunting trip. There are places in the south .... no one wants to know about.

Thadius -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:30:49 AM)
tazzy, I do understand the underlying reasons for the proposed amendment. I also am in agreement with the "stated goal" of the legislation. My issue is more with the choice of clauses, or at least the order of the clauses. Why leave it so open to interpretation or misinterpretation? Couldn't the amendment been more clear and definite? Such as: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the 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 regarding illegal activities and (or) criminal acts, including but not limited to: Violations of the Civil Rights Act, sexual assault or harassment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment. Further, that any clause that does, acceptbly under this act, mandate arbitration shall be clearly marked on such hiring contract etc... It isn't perfect, but hell it takes away any question as to what is being done. Or hell, make it into it's own bill and really go to town, so that it effects all government contracts in all departments. I wish you well, Thadius

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:33:27 AM)
That would be just too effective for our elected officials. They might even start to improve their image and approval rating if they started doing things like that. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius It isn't perfect, but hell it takes away any question as to what is being done. Or hell, make it into it's own bill and really go to town, so that it effects all government contracts in all departments. I wish you well, Thadius

CreativeDominant -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:37:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arrogance Good thing there was such a furor over Acorn over fictional crimes but not over Haliburton for gang-rape. Huzzah, America! Actually, those WEREN'T fictional crimes and the topic of the thread is not any alleged rapes occurring by Halliburton employees but over a bill written in such a way as to single out one corporation among many. As to why someone would vote against such a bill, I would say it has to do with fairness and equality across the board in penalizing or rewarding corporate entities. And, as noted by others, it DOES make for good political theater and a great way to make your opponent appear as if he supports rape.

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:43:08 AM)
Im researching more. Can someone explain the following comment i found on a blog? quote: this was under the Bush-Cheney no-bid contract, immune from US law, immune from Iraqi law cabal.

Thadius -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im researching more. Can someone explain the following comment i found on a blog? quote: this was under the Bush-Cheney no-bid contract, immune from US law, immune from Iraqi law cabal. The best I can make of it, is that it may or may not be covered under the regulations that protected private companies from liability for carrying out the work of the federal government. In its best use it would protect companies like Raytheon from being sued over how much damage their missiles caused, or whoever was providing material support to the troops from being sued for being accomplices to carrying out the war or whatever. It definitely was not in place to protect companies from commiting crimes such as those described in this particular case or the others that were eluded to.

mnottertail -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:56:15 AM)
alluded, alluded christ I feel like Harding in one flew over the cuckoos nest lately. That seems to be a common error, round these parts Harding (LOL)

DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 11:58:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im researching more. Can someone explain the following comment i found on a blog? quote: this was under the Bush-Cheney no-bid contract, immune from US law, immune from Iraqi law cabal. They were immune to US law because they were operating in Iraq. they were immune to Iraqi law because we made the interim Iraqi government sign an agreement giving them that immunity. Here's a news story about when that immunity ended: http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Contractors_To_Lose_Immunity_From_Iraqi_Law/1351464.html

Thadius -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 12:25:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail alluded, alluded christ I feel like Harding in one flew over the cuckoos nest lately. That seems to be a common error, round these parts Harding (LOL) Ron, Thanks for the correction. It is an error I make all of the damned time.... that and putting a second m in amount. Then again they may have been trying to elude the charges that were alluded to. [;)] Thanks again, Thadius

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0390625