Republicans think workplace RAPE is OKAY.

Yurt said:
did you even your link....it is about the law....



the issue about law enforcement, again from your link....was because it was outside of US criminal jurisdiction, so once again, you're lying that they did not bring in law enforcement, they couldn't. and as i said, it was not about rape, it is about giving corps the power to have employees give up the right to sue and instead accept binding arbitration. scotus has ruled this costitutional....you really need to read your link closer and if you have, you're flat out lying that republicans okay'd rape....

and you still haven't answered my question:

did she not get justice from the arbitration?
Click to expand...

You really don't listen, do you?

They keep telling me over and over that I'm wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you and I'm starting to believe them.

30 REPUBLICANS voted for corporate interests over the safety and well being of an employee.

You don't have a problem with that?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You make a great point but US does have a minor point that Mz. Huffington is a partisan and, in that respect, does lack credibility as an objective observer.
Click to expand...

Equally ridiculous.

They reported on a legislative vote .. EASILY validated or refuted.

"US" did nothing but express partisan mindfuck.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You really don't listen, do you?

They keep telling me over and over that I'm wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you and I'm starting to believe them.

30 REPUBLICANS voted for corporate interests over the safety and well being of an employee.

You don't have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

Nope .. obviously rape is ok as long as there is arbitration.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You make a great point but US does have a minor point that Mz. Huffington is a partisan and, in that respect, does lack credibility as an objective observer.
Click to expand...

I don't see that their bias plays much of a part, since this is not opinion but simple reporting. Their bias colors what they report, sure, but that does not impact the validity of this report.

Stewart's bias colors his take on it and his questioning of motivation for the thirty Republican votes is obviously opinion. HuffPost simply reported what he said.

Further, Stewart's case for his opinion is fairly strong. The argument that it's none of the government's business how the government handles it's business is obviously ridiculous. And while you might not like congress doing to much micro-managing of the beureaurats it is within their authority to do so. Bring in the acorn scandal and that position is indefensible for the Repubs.

The only valid argument I can see is whether you think this is better handled by civil courts or private arbitrators.
 
blackascoal said:
Nope .. obviously rape is ok as long as there is arbitration.
Click to expand...

come on BAC....this beneath you

this has nothing to do with rape, it has only to do with arbitration clauses....even if they changed the law, it would not affect her case, this thread is a lie

and can you tell me that she did not get any justice or different justice because she was forced to arbitrate?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You really don't listen, do you?

They keep telling me over and over that I'm wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you and I'm starting to believe them.

30 REPUBLICANS voted for corporate interests over the safety and well being of an employee.

You don't have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

i already said i don't support the arbitration clauses....

you lied when you said republicans okay'd workplace rape....this has nothing to do with rape and everything to do with arbitration clauses....so tell me....even if they changed the law regarding arbitration clauses, are you actually claiming that would have stopped this rape and any other potential future rapes????

you still have yet to answer me on whether she recieved justice without the ability to sue....why is that?
 
It's not fair to look at a bill and say this person voted against it, so they must be against the cause. There are many provisions tacked on to bills that have nothing to do with the central focus of the legislation -- they're put on there to get votes by offering pork and pet projects to get specific law makers to vote for them. For example, the Safe Ports act had a provision outlawing internet gambling (pushed by Vegas casinos and their lobbyists). Is anyone going to be the rep who voted against Safe Ports? Of course not...similarly in this supposed anti-rape bill, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for it that have nothing to do with supporting crime in the workplace.
 
Yurt said:
come on BAC....this beneath you

this has nothing to do with rape, it has only to do with arbitration clauses....even if they changed the law, it would not affect her case, this thread is a lie

and can you tell me that she did not get any justice or different justice because she was forced to arbitrate?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with rape?

Tell that to the woman who got gang raped by a bunch of her KBR co-workers.

This is about changing the law so victims have options other than accepting arbitration. 30 republicans voted to keep the status quo.

Why?
 
blackascoal said:
What a moronic response.

So 30 republicans didn't actually vote against Franken's bill against rape?

DAMN these people are stupid.
Click to expand...

shakes head....this bill wasn't a bill against rape....you're sinking to new lows today....

you guys are being partisan hacks on this, acting as if franken's bill made rape illegal and the republicans voted against that....absolutely false
 
mellisaz said:
It's not fair to look at a bill and say this person voted against it, so they must be against the cause. There are many provisions tacked on to bills that have nothing to do with the central focus of the legislation -- they're put on there to get votes by offering pork and pet projects to get specific law makers to vote for them. For example, the Safe Ports act had a provision outlawing internet gambling (pushed by Vegas casinos and their lobbyists). Is anyone going to be the rep who voted against Safe Ports? Of course not...similarly in this supposed anti-rape bill, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for it that have nothing to do with supporting crime in the workplace.
Click to expand...

I am only playing by the same rules used here on a daily basis.

Day after day, hour after hour I see thread after thread with misleading titles that allow conservatives to launch into another anti-liberal/Obama diatribe.

I learned it by watching them.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yurt, you're easily the biggest hack on the board for defending votes against PROSECUTING RAPE.
Click to expand...

another lie....this was arbitration not about prosecuting rape, franken did not want to change the law to allow CRIMINAL prosecution, only that an employee can sue in court....this bill had zero to do with prosecution
 
Oh, I wasn't calling you out Zappa. Apologies if it looked that way...I know both sides do it, that's part of why I don't care to associate with either party. Some people really don't know about how bills get passed through congress, and they're the ones that believe the campaign commercials that say "Candidate X voted against anti-crime measure" or what have you.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Nothing to do with rape?

Tell that to the woman who got gang raped by a bunch of her KBR co-workers.

This is about changing the law so victims have options other than accepting arbitration. 30 republicans voted to keep the status quo.

Why?
Click to expand...

post 28....

and please point out the language in the bill that deals with rape
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You really don't listen, do you?

They keep telling me over and over that I'm wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you and I'm starting to believe them.

30 REPUBLICANS voted for corporate interests over the safety and well being of an employee.

You don't have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

You're not addressing his point, though. He is right, I don't believe you can sign a contract that would keep the state from bringing criminal charges, but they don't have jurisdiction. Maybe, that should be addressed, as well (e.g., maybe give the military courts jurisdiction in such matters). The contract is about what civil remedies may be pursued.
 
mellisaz said:
It's not fair to look at a bill and say this person voted against it, so they must be against the cause. There are many provisions tacked on to bills that have nothing to do with the central focus of the legislation -- they're put on there to get votes by offering pork and pet projects to get specific law makers to vote for them. For example, the Safe Ports act had a provision outlawing internet gambling (pushed by Vegas casinos and their lobbyists). Is anyone going to be the rep who voted against Safe Ports? Of course not...similarly in this supposed anti-rape bill, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for it that have nothing to do with supporting crime in the workplace.
Click to expand...

The vote was against the amendment not against the bill. Do you have something that indicates the amendment had some pork tacked on?
 
RStringfield said:
You're not addressing his point, though. He is right, I don't believe you can sign a contract that would keep the state from bringing criminal charges, but they don't have jurisdiction. Maybe, that should be addressed, as well (e.g., maybe give the military courts jurisdiction in such matters). The contract is about what civil remedies may be pursued.
Click to expand...

absolutely....it is disturbing that the US does not have jurisdiction to pursue this....how about we hand those guys over to the iraqi justice system....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top