Does your Senator love (shielding government contractors from prosecution for abetting) rape?
- Thread starter Alex_P
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm disappointed in my senators. I'm from Colorado, and we're supposed to be all about free markets and free people. It's a contract, and the government has no right to stipulate what can be in a contract.
If the contract is coercive, there's a case. If the person couldn't have made an informed decision, there's a case. If the person was misled or lied to, there's a case. If the woman signed a contract, she is bound by the rules therein. That's all there is to it. Rape is bad, I agree, but the solution cannot be for the government to wantonly interfere with the formation of legitimate and valid contracts.
If the contract is coercive, there's a case. If the person couldn't have made an informed decision, there's a case. If the person was misled or lied to, there's a case. If the woman signed a contract, she is bound by the rules therein. That's all there is to it. Rape is bad, I agree, but the solution cannot be for the government to wantonly interfere with the formation of legitimate and valid contracts.
With all the people joking about rape you'd think it was an actually funny thing. I feel like a bastard so I'll present you this scenario : people afraid to be a rape victim automatically get $10,000 compensation for protection. A vote against this is like saying 'go ahead and get raped'.
you know what, that was not so analogous, don't quote me on this.
you know what, that was not so analogous, don't quote me on this.
This is a defense spending restriction. Defense contractors form contracts with the government. This law defines what kinds of contracts government officials are allowed to form with defense contractors.Seldon2639 said:
Given that the government is one of the parties in the contract, the contracts-uber-alles argument is rather senseless here.
-- Alex
The very reason that i've given up on news and instead focus on Game-related news...theshadavid said:
It seems that instead of making new posts to address new things people say, you are just editing your one post so that people get a better first impression from you. I'm calling bullshit and I will keep quoting your edits so that you can't pretend that you actually thought through what you said before you said it.theshadavid said:
EDIT: I'm not sure you quite get how a forum works, this is what post edits look like.
The amendment being voted on is a single paragraph plus a few loose sentences. The OP links to a source where you can see the exact text. I quoted the entire text for you from THOMAS. You don't have the time to read a single paragraph?theshadavid said:
-- Alex
After having read the amendment...
Screw you, op. I see what you were trying to do (implying Republicans endorse rape.) That being said, to anyone too lazy to read the amendment, there's more to it than *just* the rape clause. There's also stuff like battery, etc. Basically, under the amendment, someone who got into a fight with another contractor or military person could sue their company.
Oh, and it completely bans all contracts with Haliburton and KBR, if I'm reading this right. Even if they start dropping those particular clauses from their contracts.
Screw you, op. I see what you were trying to do (implying Republicans endorse rape.) That being said, to anyone too lazy to read the amendment, there's more to it than *just* the rape clause. There's also stuff like battery, etc. Basically, under the amendment, someone who got into a fight with another contractor or military person could sue their company.
Oh, and it completely bans all contracts with Haliburton and KBR, if I'm reading this right. Even if they start dropping those particular clauses from their contracts.