New bill needed for rape (Full Version)

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



Message

tazzygirl -> New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 8:25:34 PM)

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?



MarsBonfire -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 8:33:05 PM)

Should make for some interesting midterm election ads...

"Republican Senator "X" thought the gang rape of a 19 year old was an okay thing to do... that's why he voted against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape by US governmet contrators bill... If you have a daughter, keep her away from being represented by Republican Senator X!  Republican Senator X: "family values" we don't need... "Manson family values!"

Seriously... yet another indication that the GOP is now a bunch of rudderless ass clowns.  



mnottertail -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 8:36:26 PM)

you haven't heard, Mars? These guys think they are going to sweep the mid terms with their right reason.



Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 9:27:44 PM)

Well, unh, the ThinkProgress.com story (reposted verbatim on the ChicagoBears.com board) reports:

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it "a political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken responded, "This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court."

However, the United States Senate website and the Library of Congress record the amendment as follows:

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.

If it is really intended to mean "any Federal contract with any contracting party," any contracting party period, why isn't that what it says? The way it is worded looks to me to prohibit the use of funds for Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., it's subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other contracting party (i.e., who has an agreement with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc.).

K.






DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 9:57:29 PM)

You're misreading it. The way you are interpreting it it would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. However it is actually quite clear, any contracting party at any tier that requires employees to submit to binding arbitration for rape claims.



Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 10:02:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're misreading it.

That must be it, yes. After all, who would have a better knowledge of the English Language than a trained mathematician?

[:D]

K.





DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 10:14:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're misreading it.

That must be it, yes. After all, who would have a better knowledge of the English Language than a trained mathematician?

So you're trying to claim that since I was unaware of some obscure convention of 18th century English I can't read modern English well enough to see that you are misinterpreting this sentence?



Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 10:37:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're trying to claim that since I was unaware of some obscure convention of 18th century English I can't read modern English well enough to see that you are misinterpreting this sentence?

No, no, I'm not saying that's the reason why. I'm just saying that you can't read modern English well enough to see what it says. Essentially, you are arguing that it can't mean what it says because then it would be an illegal bill of attainder, so it must mean something else.

But the way it is written, "its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party" would be expected to refer back to "Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc." So let's go back to the question you didn't answer. Why doesn't it say, "any Federal contract with any contracting party" (period), if that's what it means?

And incidentally, that 18th Century (proper nouns are capitalized in English) practice occurs throughout the U.S. Constitution, so I doubt you were unaware of it. You just invented your own (wrong) "explanation" for it.

K.






Arrogance -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/14/2009 10:47:53 PM)

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

Huzzah, America!



rulemylife -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 4:00:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well, unh, the ThinkProgress.com story (reposted verbatim on the ChicagoBears.com board) reports:

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it "a political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken responded, "This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court."

However, the United States Senate website and the Library of Congress record the amendment as follows:

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.

If it is really intended to mean "any Federal contract with any contracting party," any contracting party period, why isn't that what it says? The way it is worded looks to me to prohibit the use of funds for Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., it's subsidiaries, affiliates, or any other contracting party (i.e., who has an agreement with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc.).



I also think you are misreading it, but that is beside the point.

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



kittinSol -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 4:42:24 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!



Bingo [>:] .



einstien5201 -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 6:41:11 AM)


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?



tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 6:47:05 AM)

~FR

Im confused.  I see where it covers Halliburton... as well as any other company who contracts.



kittinSol -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 6:48:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: einstien5201
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?


[sm=wtf.gif]



einstien5201 -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 6:49:37 AM)

The difference in reading is between "Any company who contracts with Halliburton" or "Any company who contracts with the Federal Government".



kittinSol -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 6:50:48 AM)

And what does it have to do with African American men? I think we should be told [8|] .



tazzygirl -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 7:06:13 AM)

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.

Now, thats how im reading this.  They already addressed Halliburton, who was at the center of all this. 

And they have covered any new contractors or subcontractors. 

What are they missing?



Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 8:40:28 AM)


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.



Kirata -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 9:05:42 AM)

Position affects meaning. For the amendment to clearly say what it's claimed to mean, and if it was felt that mentioning Halliburton was necessary, then an unambiguous wording would have been:

To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc. or any other contracting party, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, if....

K.






DomKen -> RE: New bill needed for rape (10/15/2009 10:13:55 AM)

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.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875