quote:

ORIGINAL: Arrogance

Good thing there was such a furor over Acorn over fictional crimes but not over Haliburton for gang-rape. 

Huzzah, America!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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.

And maybe you can explain the difference between the two?

Because as I recall, the Franken legislation was proposed because of the rape story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Because obviously, some of us are just against rape unless it includes Haliburton?

Do you see how the question you are asking comes across?  Nobody here, has stated what happened to that woman or any other woman should be protected under any law.  Rape is rape and must be tried to the fullest extent and reach of the law, and even then a bit further (that however is another story).

My question that still hasn't been answered seems pretty simple.  With such a serious issue at hand, shouldn't it apply to ALL contractors, including those not receiving funds from the Defense Dept.? 

I honestly don't think you are arguing that just the warmongering companies should be prevented from such acts. Or do you find it okay that it could possibly allow non defense related contractors to take part in gang rape?

Just sayin,
Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

as I recall, the Franken legislation was proposed because of the rape story.

True enough, but that's not what the amendment is about. It's not an "anti-rape" amendment. It's about contracts that bind any kind of criminal assault or harrassment to "arbitration".

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Because obviously, some of us are just against rape unless it includes Haliburton?

Do you see how the question you are asking comes across?  Nobody here, has stated what happened to that woman or any other woman should be protected under any law.  Rape is rape and must be tried to the fullest extent and reach of the law, and even then a bit further (that however is another story).

My question that still hasn't been answered seems pretty simple.  With such a serious issue at hand, shouldn't it apply to ALL contractors, including those not receiving funds from the Defense Dept.? 

I honestly don't think you are arguing that just the warmongering companies should be prevented from such acts. Or do you find it okay that it could possibly allow non defense related contractors to take part in gang rape?

Just sayin,
Thadius

No, first if you go back through the thread, what I an arguing is that the language of the the bill does not imply what you say it does.

But more importantly, I am wondering why this is being made an issue, other than on the basis of pure partisanship?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rikigrl

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'    

quote:

 




Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)

Statement of 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.

This is interesting. According to Republicans, a fake pimp and ho, reported to the police, was apparently so beyond the pale that they've worked to strip ACORN of all federal funding. But denying employees actual redress from gang rapes is no big deal?
Will the GOP soon introduce a new Constitution Amendment that reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting the ability of corporations to gang rape their employees"? Is support for corporate gang rape already in the GOP platform, or does it need to be added at their next meeting? Is there a huge corporate gang rape lobby that is funneling millions into GOP pockets, or did they vote this way out of personal conviction?

To summarize the Republican position: As women, we are not "average Americans," and gang rape is not a "serious" issue. As women, no matter how powerful we become on our own merits, the Republican establishment will still be hoping for a man to come along and put us in our place.
You don't have to go very far beneath the Republican surface claims of equality-but-not-really to get to the rock-bottom sense that women just don't count, that our rights and our wellbeing are always subordinate to whatever interest of men they might conflict with. When it comes to it, even the (themselves sexist) notions of chivalry and protecting women come behind protecting the right of corporations to imprison their female employees to shield their male employees from rape charges and still get government contracts.

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/gop-votes-against-prevent-rape/

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

Well, I certainly hope some of you folks reading this thread are seeing what I'm seeing. The republican supporters change the subject to "the wording of the bill," (picking on poor, poor, defenseless Halliburton, we are!) and completely avoiding the fact that 30 GOP senators voted against ending extending the arbitarion clause in government contrators hiring practices, to include obviously criminal activity. They even stand behind the faceless corperations in cases of gang rape, false imprisonment, and (probably) murder. What's next? Will Halliburton and KNB employees be given free reign to rape 12 year old girls next?

Please make a note of who here wanted to play word games, and who saw the subject for what it really was: the subversion of victims' legal rights under the Constitution via a shell game known as arbitration. (Which is great, if you have a workman's Comp claim, or a failure to pay what is owed or some other Civil claim.)  What kind of twisted philosophy would lead someone to support such a degradation of women as second class citizens? I ask you... seriously.