Does your Senator love (shielding government contractors from prosecution for abetting) rape?

Recommended Videos

Poopie McGhee

Über Sparrow Kicker
Aug 26, 2009
610
0
0
Rokar333 said:
theshadavid said:
See, I went and read some of the other posts, this bill isn't just about rape. I don't have the patience to spend my free time reading what it is about, but my point has been made. And for clarification, no, I don't have an opinion on this bill, I just think this op is ridiculous.
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.

EDIT: I'm not sure you quite get how a forum works, this is what post edits look like.
That made me laugh... (the 2nd paragraph)
 

Mstrswrd

Always playing Touhou. Always.
Mar 2, 2008
1,724
0
0
Go New York and Vermont (from New York, in Vermont for College)! All four of them voted Yea.

DrDeath3191 said:
You know, they might have a reason for voting Nay. I don't know what the hell it would be, I personally agree that a buisiness contract shouldn't limit your ability to pursue sexual assault cases. But they might have a reason for thinking that it's a bad idea.

Sorry for sounding kind of 'pro-rape', but your argument does sound a tad one-sided.
Don't worry, we know you're not "pro-rape." Someone has to play the devil's advocate (I hate that term, it makes the person doing it sound like they're evil or something).
 

101194

New member
Nov 11, 2008
5,015
0
0
Well, At least I know now That rape is accepted in america unless your a director or creepy.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
Fanusc101 said:
I do believe Mr. Judd Gregg (R-NH) will be receiving an angry letter from me shortly.
You can always ask nicely.

I sent then-Senator Obama a message about how his support for wiretap immunity was leading me to question whether I could trust him to use presidential powers wisely (he wasn't my Senator, but he was running for president). I got a pretty good (canned) position paper in response.

I still thought his argument was ass and trusted him less for making it, but I did at least get way more detail than these guys usually blurt out in public or burst on their sites.

-- Alex
 

bodyklok

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,936
0
0
Alex_P said:
bodyklok said:
Just out of interest, why were the these Senators listed as not voting?
Byrd is probably ill. He's rather old and he's had a few health scares this year.
Specter? No idea.

-- Alex
OK, thanks for clearing that up, I was just wondering.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
Huh. Now that's something.

Just to remind any brits looking at this and thinking of voting BNP, one of them recently said 'a woman cannot be raped because they like sex and rape is just sex.'

Wonder if any of these senators feel that way? Beware who you vote for kiddies.

EDIT: Having just read the sarcasm thing above, I will point out that no, this is not sarcasm, a BNP member is recorded as having said this, and admitted to it.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
Wow. There just is no reason to vote Nay on this unless you're a corporate asslicker.
Well, at least the majority of them had enough sense to vote Yea.
The relation between R and D is a bit weird, though.
This is something that should be adressed in a larger forum, like a TV bews show or something.
 

AlexFromOmaha

New member
Sep 6, 2009
39
0
0
Bertinan said:
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.
Actually, what it says is that the government can't enter into contracts with people who refuse Americans their day in court if they are a victim of a crime. Frankly, anything else is immoral. American defense contractors do not get to set themselves up as authorities above American law. "Mandatory arbitration" is code for "no courts, our call."

EDIT: I wrote what I hope was a very nice e-mail to the Nebraskan senator who voted against it asking for his reasons. If I get them in a reasonable timeframe, I'll post it here for everyone to read.
 

Zetona

New member
Dec 20, 2008
846
0
0
For all the political craziness in New Jersey at the moment, at least our senators voted Yea.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
This is a perfect example of extra shit stuck into a bill, making it eventually utterly incomprehensible. Theres about 6-8 pages of ammendments added, where each senator makes adds in a little of this or that.

SA 2604. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) In collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State shall develop a plan for replacing private security contractors with United States Government personnel within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act at United States missions in war zones where the United States Armed Forces are engaged in combat operations.

(b) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan developed under subsection (a) to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

This is the kind of thing thats just stuck in there that drives me crazy. Further, if you look at all the ammendmends to the bill, it actually looks more like a defense appropriations bill than a human rights bill. Beyond this eventual removal of independent military contractors from places like iraq and afghanistan, we I found things like 4 million dollars for the "haiti stabilizion act" or some such bullshit.

Whatever. I'd add my provision for a few million for some research program, and vote against it too, knowing full well it will pass and allow me to get my state extra appropriations while maintaining a record of opposing government spending.
 

Alex_P

All I really do is threadcrap
Mar 27, 2008
2,712
0
0
thiosk said:
If you look at all the ammendmends to the bill, it actually looks more like a defense appropriations bill than a human rights bill.
The whole thing is a defense appropriations bill. Amendments to it are voted individually. SA 2588 is just the part I quoted. The vote applies only to that amendment, not the whole bill.

The whole process is painfully arcane, but I hope I'm explaining it correctly.

-- Alex
 

IceStar100

New member
Jan 5, 2009
1,172
0
0
I hated him before but now I hope he gets assassinated

Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay

Go Hutch
 

DrDeath3191

New member
Mar 11, 2009
3,888
0
0
Mstrswrd said:
Go New York and Vermont (from New York, in Vermont for College)! All four of them voted Yea.

DrDeath3191 said:
You know, they might have a reason for voting Nay. I don't know what the hell it would be, I personally agree that a buisiness contract shouldn't limit your ability to pursue sexual assault cases. But they might have a reason for thinking that it's a bad idea.

Sorry for sounding kind of 'pro-rape', but your argument does sound a tad one-sided.
Don't worry, we know you're not "pro-rape." Someone has to play the devil's advocate (I hate that term, it makes the person doing it sound like they're evil or something).
Thanks for understanding.

After reading one of the posts in this thread, I've come to a plausible reason for them to say 'Nay': Should the government have the right to step into any contract and say "nuh-UH!" I mean, think about it. This person signed a contract saying that she was giving up those rights. I don't agree with the contract itself, but I think I'm coming to agree with the nay-sayers. But regardless, she knowingly signed the contract. If the contract was deceitful, or signed without knowledge or permission from the person, then I'd think the government should be involved. However since she (as far as I know) did not do either of these things, it's a legal agreement.

Let me state again that I am not 'pro-rape'. I just think she should've either negotiated the contract, or refused to sign it.
 

Seldon2639

New member
Feb 21, 2008
1,756
0
0
Alex_P said:
Seldon2639 said:
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.
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.

Given that the government is one of the parties in the contract, the contracts-uber-alles argument is rather senseless here.

-- Alex
It's senseless only if you assume that the purpose of a government contract is to encourage whatever we're defining as "good" behavior on the part of the recipient. But, the government takes the lowest contract (by statute), or it's burning our money. To institute new restrictions (which will increase prices to the taxpayer) is itself senseless.. The issue here is that she was raped, not the binding arbitration. Almost any work contract includes an arbitration provision. Don't conflate the two. Demand prosecution, jump down the throat of the U.S Attorney, but don't mash the issues together.

If the cheapest contractor happens to have a binding arbitration agreement with its employees, what's the problem? Rape is bad, yes, but the woman signed the contract. When did the government get in the business of protecting people from being foolish? If I want to sign a contract stipulating that I have to be violently savaged by dogs every day for the next year, I can. Obviously, she didn't agree to be raped, but she did agree not to bring a court action.

Before someone jumps down my throat: I have nothing but sympathy for any rape victim. She is in no way to blame for the heinous act committed against her. But, she is to blame for signing the damned contract.
 

DeathWyrmNexus

New member
Jan 5, 2008
1,143
0
0
Yay Iowa... Seriously, what moron Senator thought this was a good idea to stand against? Oh right, those morons. So nice to see Republicans as a party for the people.