RE: New bill needed for rape

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: New bill needed for rape

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: New bill needed for rape

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:14:18 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: einstien5201

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Whether this was directed solely at Halliburton or not it is not a valid opposition to the proposed legislation.

Oh? And if Congress was voting on a law that said "The penalty for rape by an African-American man, or any other person, shall be death", would you vote for it? Even assuming that the intent and final meaning of the law would not target a particular group, is it ok to single them out in the wording?

That is by far the most ludicrous analogy I have seen on these boards, or for that matter anywhere.

You are going to sit here and defend an abhorrent policy that should never have existed because it targets one company? A company who instituted that policy?

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/15/2009 3:20:48 PM >

(in reply to einstien5201)

Post #: 41

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:19:52 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Whether this was directed solely at Halliburton or not it is not a valid opposition to the proposed legislation.

Well I certainly think it's outrageous for something like criminal rape to be subject to fucking "arbitration". But there is snakiness afoot for Franken to say that it doesn't single out Halliburton. It obviously does, no matter how you read it. So I still have to wonder why the hell it didn't just say what it is argued to mean. Does anyone really doubt that it would have received unanimous passage then?

K.

Then let's go with that.

Let's say it does single out Halliburton.

Why should that make a difference considering the case in question involves direct Halliburton policy?

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 42

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:23:00 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You are going to sit here and defend an abhorrent policy that should never have existed because it targets one company? A company who instituted that policy?

Unh, do you see him defending the policy? Paste that for me. I missed it.

K.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 43

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:31:15 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You are going to sit here and defend an abhorrent policy that should never have existed because it targets one company? A company who instituted that policy?

Unh, do you see him defending the policy? Paste that for me. I missed it.

K.

Then do tell me Kirata, what exactly you and he are arguing, if not an attempt to defend Halliburton or an attempt to discredit Franken.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 44

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:35:11 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Let's say it does single out Halliburton.

Why should that make a difference considering the case in question involves direct Halliburton policy?

Did I say the mere fact that it mentioned Halliburton made a difference? Paste that for me. I missed it. I seem to remember posting a re-wording of it that included mention of Halliburton.

K.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 45

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:36:54 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Let's say it does single out Halliburton.

Why should that make a difference considering the case in question involves direct Halliburton policy?

Did I say the mere fact that it mentioned Halliburton made a difference? Paste that for me. I missed it. I seem to remember posting a re-wording of it that included mention of Halliburton.

K.

So, I'll ask again.

What exactly are you arguing here?

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 46

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 3:46:32 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then do tell me Kirata, what exactly you and he are arguing, if not an attempt to defend Halliburton or an attempt to discredit Franken.

Speaking only for myself, nah, nevermind. No more clues. If that's your story, you stick with it. I don't want to risk destabilizing your personality.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/15/2009 4:18:43 PM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 47

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 4:00:53 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then do tell me Kirata, what exactly you and he are arguing, if not an attempt to defend Halliburton or an attempt to discredit Franken.

Speaking only for myself, nah, nevermind. No more clues. If that's your story, you stick with it. I don't want to risk destabilizing your personality.

K.

Oh, go ahead, take the risk.

It might be fun for both of us.

But I will ask one more time. What exactly is the point of your opposition to this legislation?

Seems like an easy question, since you've been arguing against it, yet never really saying why you are opposed to it other than pointing out flaws in how it was worded.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/15/2009 4:01:46 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 48

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 4:32:28 PM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

Let me take a stab at this one. At least from my understanding of what has been debated in this thread. This is purely my interpretation of the words of these men, and I am sure they will correct me if I am off base.

Neither they, nor I, are arguing in defense of a particular company the acts committed. Nor is the debate about the obvious positives of the legislation. The comments I read were asking why there needed to be a specific calling out of a particular company, its subparts, and then except that the next clause is supposed to be inclusive of all other companies. Why not just state that no company, contractor, or subcontractor....? The only obvious reason for the inclusion is for the political grandstanding, and the possible bait that some would object strictly on those grounds. I contend, as others have, that if the bill was written with the straightforward ban on funding for any and all groups that operated in such a way, the vote would have been 99-0 (or how ever many are physically able to vote right now) in favor.

Let me try another tact. If the Senate wrote a bill stating that "Christians and all other religions had the right to worship on whichever day they chose." or some other statement of what should be obvious. Do you believe that there might be some opposition strictly based on the mention or direct inclusion of Christians in the bill? I do. I can even see the spin that one party or the other would put on it. "Party X is against religions being able to worship on the day of their choosing." or "So and So is opposed to Christians worship services." I hope that clears up the why of some of the posts around this thread.

As I said in another post. They should rip this amendment out of the Defense Bill and make it a stand alone that bans such practices by all government contractors.

Then again, what the hell do I know,
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 49

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 4:37:21 PM

OrionTheWolf

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

The difference would be a fine, upstanding and truthful Senator said it was not about singling out Haliburton. So what do you think about Franken saying it does not single them out?

Why even include their name in the bill? Seems you would want to make a bill as "landmine" free as possible if the number one priority is to get it passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then let's go with that.

Let's say it does single out Halliburton.

Why should that make a difference considering the case in question involves direct Halliburton policy?

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 50

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:07:14 PM

rikigrl

Posts: 203
Joined: 5/14/2009
Status: offline

uhn, it seems pretty obvious (to me anyway) that Halliburton was mentioned since that was the company that used the contracts that prevented rapists from being prosecuted...or did you people not read the story? Halliburton was mentioned specifically in the bill for their repugnant behavior (their effrontary to justice should be shouted from the rooftops imo) and the wording went on to further include all other contractors.

(stifling criticism of the nitpicking)
just sayin'

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 51

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:17:19 PM

Arrogance

Posts: 185
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline

Lol... I love how this has become about whether or not they singled out Haliburton and not about THE RAPE.

Idiots.

(in reply to rikigrl)

Post #: 52

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:25:05 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rikigrl

Halliburton was mentioned specifically in the bill for their repugnant behavior....

Well, no. Halliburton (as it turns out) was only mentioned in the "purpose" statement. The actual wording of the amendment itself doesn't mention Halliburton and is exactly as it should properly be, namely, clear and unambiguous.

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....

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/15/2009 6:07:20 PM >

(in reply to rikigrl)

Post #: 53

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:26:54 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

The comments I read were asking why there needed to be a specific calling out of a particular company, its subparts, and then except that the next clause is supposed to be inclusive of all other companies. Why not just state that no company, contractor, or subcontractor....? The only obvious reason for the inclusion is for the political grandstanding, and the possible bait that some would object strictly on those grounds.

Interesting.

And how did you and the others feel about this calling out of a particular company/organization?

Congress Targets ACORN in a Bipartisan Way

In a legislative surprise Thursday, the House overwhelmingly voted to withhold all funding for ACORN.

Later in the day, a Republican senator succeeded in targeting funds away from the group through yet another spending bill.

The House measure came as a parliamentary maneuver during debate on a higher education bill.

Many expected the anti-ACORN effort would be ruled out of order because it didn't pertain to education.

But in a stunning turn of events, House Education Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., not only accepted the ACORN provision, but also encouraged Democrats to vote for it.

(in reply to Thadius)

Post #: 54

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:29:37 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arrogance

Lol... I love how this has become about whether or not they singled out Haliburton and not about THE RAPE.

Idiots.

I'm just guessing, but maybe because the topic of this thread is the Franken amendment, not the rape story?

K.

(in reply to Arrogance)

Post #: 55

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:36:06 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

deleted

< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/15/2009 5:38:57 PM >

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 56

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:39:43 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

This woman had to spend years in arbitration BEFORE she could take it to court. The Courts finally agreed the contract was not valid as the rape wasnt an act of normal business practice, therefor not binding by the contract.

NOW she gets to sue and prosecute.

I see this as getting rid of the arbitration bs.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 57

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:40:29 PM

Thadius

Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

To be honest, I didn't get to see that legislation. If it did include the name of Acorn in it, then yes I would be making the exact same point I have made here. If some behaviour is not to be allowed by a vendor, contractor, or recipient of government funds, ban it across the board for all such entities. Why leave the possible interpretation that the bill only applies to a specific person, company, or group?

As I pointed out earlier, the actual legislation that passed (the vote was on the 6th, don't know if it was modified after) did remove the specific reference to Haliburton, so it is anybody's guess as to why there was still opposition, save the one I have mentioned, apply it to all contractors not just those employed by the Defense Dept.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 58

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:46:09 PM

rulemylife

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

The difference would be a fine, upstanding and truthful Senator said it was not about singling out Haliburton. So what do you think about Franken saying it does not single them out?

Why even include their name in the bill? Seems you would want to make a bill as "landmine" free as possible if the number one priority is to get it passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then let's go with that.

Let's say it does single out Halliburton.

Why should that make a difference considering the case in question involves direct Halliburton policy?

Seems since the whole bill was predicated on the Halliburton incident, and Halliburton has so many exclusive government contracts, that it should not make a difference whether he was singling them out or not.

So I will again ask the question that no one has answered for me.

What is the point of all this opposition to legislation that seems to be pretty straightforward. Rape is not a good thing. Can we agree on that? Rape should be prosecuted as a criminal act. Can we also agree on that?

If so, then we can agree that rape is not something that any court would rule is subject to a contractual agreement.

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/15/2009 5:47:27 PM >

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

Post #: 59

RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 5:51:04 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Rape is not a good thing. Can we agree on that? Rape should be prosecuted as a criminal act. Can we also agree on that?

If so, then we can agree that rape is not something that any court would rule is subject to a contractual agreement.

Has anyone argued otherwise? Paste that for me. I missed that.

K.

(in reply to rulemylife)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: New bill needed for rape

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109