Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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 >> New bill needed for rape Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 8:25:34 PM   
tazzygirl


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


_____________________________

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.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 8:33:05 PM   
MarsBonfire


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

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 8:36:26 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		you haven't heard, Mars? These guys think they are going to sweep the mid terms with their right reason.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 9:27:44 PM   
Kirata


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





< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/14/2009 9:52:55 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 9:57:29 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 10/14/2009 10:09:26 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 10:02:33 PM   
Kirata


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



K.




< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/14/2009 10:06:56 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 10:14:53 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 10:37:22 PM   
Kirata


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





< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/14/2009 11:06:03 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/14/2009 10:47:53 PM   
Arrogance


Posts: 185
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline 		Good thing there was such a furor over Acorn over fictional crimes but not over Haliburton for gang-rape. 

Huzzah, America!

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 4:00:49 AM   
rulemylife


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


< Message edited by rulemylife -- 10/15/2009 4:04:12 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 4:42:24 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
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  .

_____________________________



(in reply to Arrogance)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 6:41:11 AM   
einstien5201


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/29/2009
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 6:47:05 AM   
tazzygirl


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

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

_____________________________

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 kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 6:48:34 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
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?





_____________________________



(in reply to einstien5201)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 6:49:37 AM   
einstien5201


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/29/2009
Status: offline 		The difference in reading is between "Any company who contracts with Halliburton" or "Any company who contracts with the Federal Government".

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 6:50:48 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline 		And what does it have to do with African American men? I think we should be told  .

_____________________________



(in reply to einstien5201)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 7:06:13 AM   
tazzygirl


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

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 10/15/2009 7:07:07 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 kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 8:40:28 AM   
Kirata


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

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 9:05:42 AM   
Kirata


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





< Message edited by Kirata -- 10/15/2009 10:08:19 AM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: New bill needed for rape - 10/15/2009 10:13:55 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 10/15/2009 10:14:59 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> New bill needed for rape Page: [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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109