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  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/16/2009 5:04:03 PM   
OrionTheWolf


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




_____________________________

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 SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/16/2009 5:25:33 PM   
Kirata


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





< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/16/2009 5:45:03 PM >

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/16/2009 5:45:03 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 7:29:09 AM   
MarsBonfire


Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 8:19:18 AM   
tazzygirl


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

_____________________________

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 OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 11:11:07 AM   
OrionTheWolf


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

_____________________________

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 tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 11:21:17 AM   
Kirata


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




< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/17/2009 11:22:11 AM >

(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 12:09:14 PM   
SpinnerofTales


Posts: 1586
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 2:10:50 PM   
OrionTheWolf


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




_____________________________

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 SpinnerofTales)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 2:12:48 PM   
OrionTheWolf


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





_____________________________

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 Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 4:48:08 PM   
rikigrl


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

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/17/2009 9:45:58 PM   
rulemylife


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







< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/17/2009 9:50:49 PM >

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 5:42:18 AM   
OrionTheWolf


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

_____________________________

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)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 6:27:47 AM   
tazzygirl


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

_____________________________

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 OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 6:41:28 AM   
Acer49


Posts: 1434
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.
Harvey Fierstein

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 7:01:52 AM   
tazzygirl


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

_____________________________

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 Acer49)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 7:55:03 AM   
MarsBonfire


Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 9:58:06 AM   
MarsBonfire


Posts: 1034
Joined: 3/6/2005
Status: offline 		@ 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.

(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 10:24:04 AM   
rulemylife


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

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/18/2009 10:34:26 AM >

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/18/2009 10:33:46 AM   
tazzygirl


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

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 10/18/2009 10:35:33 AM >

_____________________________

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 rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: New bill needed for rape Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.105