That made me laugh... (the 2nd paragraph)Rokar333 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: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.
EDIT: I'm not sure you quite get how a forum works, this is what post edits look like.
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).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.
You can always ask nicely.Fanusc101 said:I do believe Mr. Judd Gregg (R-NH) will be receiving an angry letter from me shortly.
OK, thanks for clearing that up, I was just wondering.Alex_P said:Byrd is probably ill. He's rather old and he's had a few health scares this year.bodyklok said:Just out of interest, why were the these Senators listed as not voting?
Specter? No idea.
-- Alex
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."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.
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.
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.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.
Thanks for understanding.Mstrswrd said:Go New York and Vermont (from New York, in Vermont for College)! All four of them voted Yea.
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).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.
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.Alex_P said: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: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.
Given that the government is one of the parties in the contract, the contracts-uber-alles argument is rather senseless here.
-- Alex