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

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/16/2009 5:04:03 PM)
I do not disagree with what you say, but why even put such a landmine in if the priority is to make sure the bill is fast tracked, and the people that need protecting are indeed protected? quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: No the issue I have is why did they ever put Haliburton's name anywhere near the bill, if their true intended purpose was to protect? The only reason I can see is to create poltical bait, which I find reprehensible that they did so. Such an important bill should have been made landmine free, so that it could be fast tracked through. ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Perhaps the landmine was indeed set. The landmine was giving the GOP the choice between supporting Haliburton or strengthening the protections against rape. Another possible landmine was the choice between voting for a bill that cost no money, did an undeniable good but would make them side with the democrats instead of opposing out of knee jerk. If this is true, the GOP members who voted against the bill stepped directly onto it.

Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/16/2009 5:25:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Perhaps the landmine was indeed set. The landmine was giving the GOP the choice between supporting Haliburton or strengthening the protections against rape. Another possible landmine was the choice between voting for a bill that cost no money, did an undeniable good but would make them side with the democrats instead of opposing out of knee jerk. If this is true, the GOP members who voted against the bill stepped directly onto it. The landmine appears to me to have been the ambiguity of the "purpose" statement -- because therein rests the only basis for an objection that the amendment singled out Halliburton -- and the fact that the "purpose" statement did not reflect the actual wording of the text of the amendment. And yes, 30 Republicans stepped right on it. Let it be said, however, that never at any time was opposition to "strengthening the protections against rape" and other crimes of violence or abuse expressed. What we have here, instead, is 30 newly minted poster-children for what can happen when you don't read the actual text of the legislation you're voting on. K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/16/2009 5:45:03 PM)
quote: The landmine appears to me to have been the ambiguity of the "purpose" statement -- because therein rests the only basis for an objection that the amendment singled out Halliburton -- and the fact that the "purpose" statement did not reflect the actual wording of the text of the bill. And yes, 30 Republicans stepped right on it. Let it be said, however, that never at any time was opposition to "strengthening the protections against rape" and other crimes of violence or abuse expressed. What we have here, instead, is 30 newly minted poster-children for what can happen when you don't read the actual text of the legislation you're voting on. ORIGINAL: Kirata Those landmines are nothing new. The legislature has a long habit of putting stuff together that can bite any legislator in the butt. One of the most common tricks is presenting a bill that says "We are going to lengthen sentences for sweat shop owners and we are going to raise taxes 25% on tire sales". In someone votes against, the claim is made at the next election "This man voted against harsher sentences for sweat shop owners" if he votes for it "This man voted to raise taxes 25% on people on need new tires". Landmines are nothing new in legislation. This is, however, an interesting case.

MarsBonfire -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 7:29:09 AM)
That may be so, Spinner. So you feel that this bill was wrong for that reason? That prosecution for either gang rape and false imprisonment (both federal crimes) should be left up to private arbitration? Or is it that corperations, employed by the US government are granted the power of being their own police force, superceeding the US Constitution, and all of our laws? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, criminal acts should be tried in a court of law? I can see the advantage of letting multinatinal companies be their own fourth branch of the government. Maybe if I'm ever brought up on charges at Pepsi Co, I can get a change of venue over to the Disney justice system, and get a fairer trial. But then, maybe I can get an appeal via the Shell Oil system, if I have a coupon for "half off your time served." Although I'd probably prefer to serve out my time at a Disney prison... I hear they are much nicer, if you don't mind hearing "It's a Small World" being played over the PA system 24/7/365...

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 8:19:18 AM)
quote: No the issue I have is why did they ever put Haliburton's name anywhere near the bill, if their true intended purpose was to protect? The only reason I can see is to create poltical bait, which I find reprehensible that they did so. Such an important bill should have been made landmine free, so that it could be fast tracked through. I can offer another reason, Master Orion, one which im sure many women will be able to understand. We all know bills change from the moment of inception to the moment of passage. What follows is only my own conjecture. The bill was written in such a way that the woman in question could feel some personal vindication against a company that violated her in every way imaginable. Her case still has not been heard in a court of law... only the case about the case being legally heard in court. Again, i have no proof. I do believe considering how many groups of women were backing this bill that this is a plausible explanation with the expectation of the Halliburton name being removed all along. They took so much from this woman... perhaps this was a way to give her something back.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 11:11:07 AM)
That may well be. I wrote to someone privately that they should have left the name out in the beginning, gotten the bill fast tracked, and then once signed nailed the bastards to the wall in the media. Also, I am still a little confused by Franken's comments, which as Thadius said, seem to be half truths. Leave that crap out, get important legislation passed, and then rip up anyone that it points at.

Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 11:21:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire So you feel that this bill was wrong for that reason? That prosecution for either gang rape and false imprisonment (both federal crimes) should be left up to private arbitration? I realize you were replying to Spinner, but I am confused why this is being spun as an "either/or" proposition, i.e., either you vote for the bill as is, or else you must want to leave the consequences for gang rape and false imprisonment up to private arbitration. C'mon Mars, that's just nuts. I haven't seen a single person argue in favor of that position; not here, not in the news, not anywhere. K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 12:09:14 PM)
quote: That may be so, Spinner. So you feel that this bill was wrong for that reason? That prosecution for either gang rape and false imprisonment (both federal crimes) should be left up to private arbitration? Or is it that corperations, employed by the US government are granted the power of being their own police force, superceeding the US Constitution, and all of our laws? ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Mars, my saying that there are a lot of landmines that can be put into legislation by no means infers that I am in any way tolerant of rape or any other position. It merely says that there are tricks used in legislation and a wise legislator has to learn to avoid them. It was a comment about the general system of legislation and not aimed at this one. To suggest otherwise is beneath contempt.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 2:10:50 PM)
Damn Spinner, I cannot believe he turned that around on you. Just so you know, I did not see anything in any of your responses that indicated you did not support this bill, that you felt that gang rape and false imprisonment should be left to private arbitration, or that you support private companies having any kind of police powers. This is typical of Mars, and a few others here, as well as it is a reflection of some of the things that is repulsive, and needs to be corrected in our political system. quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: That may be so, Spinner. So you feel that this bill was wrong for that reason? That prosecution for either gang rape and false imprisonment (both federal crimes) should be left up to private arbitration? Or is it that corperations, employed by the US government are granted the power of being their own police force, superceeding the US Constitution, and all of our laws? ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire Mars, my saying that there are a lot of landmines that can be put into legislation by no means infers that I am in any way tolerant of rape or any other position. It merely says that there are tricks used in legislation and a wise legislator has to learn to avoid them. It was a comment about the general system of legislation and not aimed at this one. To suggest otherwise is beneath contempt.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 2:12:48 PM)
No one has argued it, but it will not keep Mars and a few others from saying it is true. Hell I find that more offensive and insulting than many of the things that occur on this forum that are reportable offenses. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire So you feel that this bill was wrong for that reason? That prosecution for either gang rape and false imprisonment (both federal crimes) should be left up to private arbitration? I realize you were replying to Spinner, but I am confused why this is being spun as an "either/or" proposition, i.e., either you vote for the bill as is, or else you must want to leave the consequences for gang rape and false imprisonment up to private arbitration. C'mon Mars, that's just nuts. I haven't seen a single person argue in favor of that position; not here, not in the news, not anywhere. K.

rikigrl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 4:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No the issue I have is why did they ever put Haliburton's name anywhere near the bill, if their true intended purpose was to protect? The only reason I can see is to create poltical bait, which I find reprehensible that they did so. Such an important bill should have been made landmine free, so that it could be fast tracked through. I can offer another reason, Master Orion, one which im sure many women will be able to understand. We all know bills change from the moment of inception to the moment of passage. What follows is only my own conjecture. The bill was written in such a way that the woman in question could feel some personal vindication against a company that violated her in every way imaginable. Her case still has not been heard in a court of law... only the case about the case being legally heard in court. Again, i have no proof. I do believe considering how many groups of women were backing this bill that this is a plausible explanation with the expectation of the Halliburton name being removed all along. They took so much from this woman... perhaps this was a way to give her something back. That's the same point i was trying to make in post #50 tazzy.

rulemylife -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/17/2009 9:45:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I did enjoy the way you spun away from the direct question, and the attempted spin on my words. Again, nobody here, that I have read, has said that what occured was acceptable or should be defended. Of course this must be a dream story for those that want to make political hay one way or the other. Let's write the headline now. "GOP is in favor of gang raping employees." or "GOP sends women back to dark ages, by denying protections against workplace gang rapes." Those work for ya? No, it wasn't said and it wasn't even implied, but the question that keeps occurring to me is why there is any opposition to this at all other than to oppose any Democratic legislation regardless of its worthiness. quote: Of course you are more than willing to admit that you are non-partisan and don't have any dogs in the fight? Absolutely not. I'm very partisan, though I never used to be. It came about as the result of seeing serious issues like this being opposed by conservatives for trivial reasons that amount to "if a Democrat proposes it I will vote against it". quote: I have said what I wanted to on this subject and the topic at hand, if you wish to discuss the topic which I understand to be the amendment by Sen Franken, I wil be glad to do so. I though that is what we were discussing, though you want to discuss the language of the legislation while I am interested in the intent.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 5:42:18 AM)
The rest of us are discussing it. You keep jumping to conclusions that are unsupported or asking questions like "Do you still beat your wife" which is assume facts not in evidence. Why did some Senators oppose it? You would need to check their site, and some of us have theorized it may have been objection to some of the wording. After discussion and see more of what the bill actually states, the only reason I can see opposition is confusion with the statement of purpose and the bill, or just politics as usual. You stated that people here have opposed the bill, or defended those that opposed it, and you have been called out to show where any have done that. Show it, or admit that you made a mistake, show us the kind of integrity your represent.

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 6:27:47 AM)
Interesting. I took the advice to go to the Senator's sites, those who voted against the bill. After looking through the massively bad web sites for about 10, i could not find any information, except that they voted against the amendment. So much for that.

Acer49 -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 6:41:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl 30 GOP Senators Vote Against Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment http://boards.chicagobears.com/forums/thread/1834632.aspx http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/ While the bill did pass, the excuses were, to say the least, inexcusable. Do they really listen to themselves? What makes Halliburton/KBR think that this arbitration clause can include an illigal act? We are not talking wrongful termination or poor working conditions we are talking about concealing a felony? No clause is enforceable if it requires an individual to become involved in an illegal act. the members of haliburton are accessories after the fact with regards to the rape and therefore can be charged with the crime of rape, false imprisonment and a few other items

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 7:01:52 AM)
Because Halliburton was protected, their contracts binding, and Jones had to go through years of arbitration before she could take the case to a court for a ruling... that ruling being she was now allowed to seek criminal and civil actions against the company. That was allowed ONLY because the crime was not in the direct "line of duty" and as such not binding under the contract. In other words. Halliburton had the right, by our government to make her seek arbitration for everything... and she had to go through that process before she could seek remedy through the courts. Gang raped, once, twice, three times... poor lady

MarsBonfire -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 7:55:03 AM)
At least Tazzy seems to be "getting it" here... As to why they deliberately kept the names of specific contractors in the bill? Well, it's very cynical for me to say so, but I think it was put in there as flypaper. Now they can say, "Senator X" puts Halliburton before the law of the USA. The ultimate aim here isn't just to make sure that rape victims get their day in court... it's also to purge the Senate from those who supported Bush/Cheany, and the corperation they gave the no bid contracts to. This bill will be back, and this time it will be fast tracked. But again, the GOP didn't see it coming and has happily shot itself in the foot. Enjoy the upcoming midterm advertisements.

MarsBonfire -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 9:58:06 AM)
@ Spinner: Sorry that I came off as attacking you, specifically. That was meant to be more rhetorical, posed to all, and not just aimed at you. I've always thought YOUR opinion is worth listening to.

rulemylife -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 10:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The rest of us are discussing it. You keep jumping to conclusions that are unsupported or asking questions like "Do you still beat your wife" which is assume facts not in evidence. Why did some Senators oppose it? You would need to check their site, and some of us have theorized it may have been objection to some of the wording. After discussion and see more of what the bill actually states, the only reason I can see opposition is confusion with the statement of purpose and the bill, or just politics as usual. You stated that people here have opposed the bill, or defended those that opposed it, and you have been called out to show where any have done that. Show it, or admit that you made a mistake, show us the kind of integrity your represent. Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!! This bill is being opposed on a purely partisan basis and all I have seen here are feeble attempts to defend that partisanship. Edited to elaborate : This breaks down very simply. Do you believe this woman has a right to justice? If so then all the rest is nonsense.

tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/18/2009 10:33:46 AM)
Snowe (R-ME) Murkowski (R-AK) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) LeMieux (R-FL) Lugar (R-IN) Collins (R-ME) Bennett (R-UT) Voinovich (R-OH) ~edited because i missed this one~ These are the Republicans who voted for the passage. Now, if im not mistaken, 4 are women. Leaving 6 men who voted for the bill. Im just curious, in light of these men actually passing this, what the excuses will be come election time for the 30 who did not... all republicans.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02