PDA

View Full Version : McCain & Lindsey Graham Make "Republicans For Rape" List




dannno
10-21-2009, 03:40 PM
Here are the rest:

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/


From www.RepublicansForRape.org


Well the good news is that this should make it that much easier to get Democrats to consider supporting the Republican Party :rolleyes:


And can you believe it.. These guys actually used free market and contract law to support their position!! Well if they were right I'd expect to see Ron Paul on the Republicans for Rape website, but guess what? Ron Paul isn't on the website.. but let this guy put you through the mental exercise it required to vote against this bill...


YouTube - Republicans For Rape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFCBY7Jmhlo)


This was a Senate bill, so obviously Ron Paul did not vote. Apparently defense contractor KBR made some 19 yr old girl sign a contract that stated in the case of rape or sexual assault she does not have the right to go to court, she has to go through a KBR arbitrator. The problem is that this girl was gang raped by several employees, then locked her into a shipping container when she tried to inform higher authority. When she finally did report it to KBR, they tried to silence her and told her not to seek charges. Then when she did go to court, she was denied. What is that all about? You can't sign a work contract to consent to being assaulted, can you? This seems like the kind of contract the government shouldn't be able to enforce anyway. There are certain type of contracts that cannot be enforced by government, I believe this to be one.


Here's John Stewart on this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

specsaregood
10-21-2009, 03:51 PM
The analysis and details of the situation you cited are incorrect.

specsaregood
10-21-2009, 04:11 PM
Here's the deal:
This was an amendment to a defense department appropriations bill. So no doubt RP will be voting against it when it gets to the house; not because of the amendment but because of the overall bill.

This is the entire scope of what those senators named voted against:


SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) 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; as follows:

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

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.


First this only deals with civil suit issues, not criminal. The company(s) aren't making people sign contracts saying that they will not file charges for criminal behavior. The people that raped her should face criminal charges, this bill has nothing to do with any of that. This only deals with whether employees can agree to not sue their employer through the courts; but rather agree to arbitration beforehand.

Currently the companys have new employees sign a contract saying they won't sue no matter what; but instead go through arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration


Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the "arbitrators", "arbiters" or "arbitral tribunal"), by whose decision (the "award") they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides.[1]


The Arbitrators are independent (they aren't company employees). They hear all the information and make a ruling. IIRC, both parties have to agree beforehand on who the arbitrator(s) are; but not sure. So obviously lawyers don't like this because they can't make much money off of arbitration hearings versus a jury trial or threat of a jury trial.

The employee is agreeing to go to arbitration, entering into a legally binding contract. Once again this has nothing to do with criminal matters.

I could go either way on this bill. I don't like the govt getting involved in private employment contracts; but on the otherhand this only affects companies that are sucking off the governments teat. On yet another hand, any additional expenses that end up going to the company will just be padded onto their bill that ends up in the hands of the taxpayers....

dannno
10-21-2009, 04:13 PM
The analysis and details of the situation you cited are incorrect.

Well considering Ron Paul isn't in the senate, that would be one right there too :p

I had to fix some wording in the OP..

specsaregood
10-21-2009, 04:13 PM
This is what one senator that voted against the amendment had to say. A lot of hyperbole and twisting; but I think some of it is true and valid.


Thank you for contacting me regarding an amendment included in the Senate-passed Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2010, that prohibits funding for federal contractors who require the use of arbitration to settle employment disputes. I appreciate hearing from you and the opportunity to respond.

Senate amendment 2588 to H.R.3326, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2010, was introduced by Senator Al Franken in response to the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a 22-year-old Texan who alleges that in 2005 she was drugged and gang raped by fellow contract workers while working for defense contractor Halliburton/KBR at Camp Hope in Baghdad. Ms. Jones sued Halliburton/KBR and a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in September 2009 that Jones' employment contract with Halliburton/KBR does not prohibit her from suing over the claims she has made and that her lawsuit against Halliburton/KBR can go to trial. I am glad Ms. Jones is getting her day in court for these civil claims against the company, and I believe that if the charges bear out, those responsible for this horrific crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I voted against this amendment in accordance with the recommendation of the President and his Department of Defense, which opposed this amendment. Under the Franken amendment, defense contractors who receive federal funding could no longer require that employees sign contracts mandating that they settle employment disputes through arbitration. The amendment applies to current defense contracts and thus contractors who have employment arbitration agreements with their employees and who have already completed work for the military would not be able to paid for that work, under the Franken amendment.

In addition, I believe that this amendment would reverberate far beyond Ms. Jones' claim against Halliburton because it would lead to defense contractors eliminating arbitration altogether as an option for employees. Arbitration is a proven process that offers fast and fair resolutions of employment disputes, and its must be preserved as an option.

Without arbitration, employees are left with only the option of going to court, which is a very expensive and lengthy process. Arbitration allows employees to still make their claim and pay nothing or nearly nothing to do so because an employee does not have to hire an attorney for arbitration. Additionally, statistics show that employees actually fair better in the arbitration process than they do in court. According to a survey, employees have a 63 percent chance of prevailing in arbitration versus a 43 percent chance of prevailing in court.

The Franken amendment ultimately passed by a vote of 68 to 30, and some are characterizing the 30 senators who voted against the Franken amendment as "Pro-Rape" or "Pro-Gang Rape." This is politics at its worst. I am a husband, a father of a daughter, and a grandfather to three granddaughters, and it is absolutely ludicrous to characterize me or my colleagues as "pro-rape." Rape is a heinous crime and those who commit sexual assault should be punished, and I believe that the U.S. Justice Department should become more aggressive in prosecuting cases of rape and violent crime in combat zones such as Iraq. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, I would certainly have voted for the amendment.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter (http://isakson.senate.gov/newsletter.html).

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

WClint
10-21-2009, 04:15 PM
I wouldnt take anything the young jerks say very seriously. They are framing the context of the debate to however they want.

These are the same scum who without any evidence what so ever say that glenn beck raped and killed a 12 year girl thinks its funny. Well I saw its time to fight fire with fire. Lets start registering websites such as GodOfDebt.com and post pictures of Obama or how about ObongoTheGodOfDebt

Promontorium
10-21-2009, 05:11 PM
Considering all government contractors act as extentions of the government (simply calling them 'contractors' and 'private' companies doesn't alter the fact they take tax-payer money to do outsourced government employee jobs) I do support the government designing the contracts.

If we thought the government should have no right to tell a contracted business how to operate, should we not be against HR-1207? No it's not different. Look at the morality. We want HR-1207 to reign in this private business, and probably use the audit as a weapon to dismantle it.

I do not think any employer, that hires a business to provide a service should be condemned for looking into how the business operates. If you owned a company, and you hired an outside cleaning company to handle your facilities, would you not feel obliged to renegotiate if you found out the company you hired only hires illegal immigrants and kills babies? It IS your business, because you're paying the company.



I would argue, that the government SHOULD NOT be contracting as much as it does. Especially when it comes to war. Unless the services provided are too specialized for the government (government outsources troops, and it pays companies for weapons, the weapons make sense, the mercs do not).

As long as the government is contracting, it should hold its employees to the same standards as it holds to itself.

specsaregood
10-21-2009, 05:26 PM
As long as the government is contracting, it should hold its employees to the same standards as it holds to itself.

I don't disagree with anything you said. But this last line.

How is employee and employer damaging anybody or themselves by agreeing beforehand to go through arbitration to settle civil disputes rather than the courts? The only people that are being cut out of the loop are the trial attorneys. I think it is say to say that the arbitration method saves a lot of money for both sides and in the end the taxpayer by cutting out the lawyer fees.

NYgs23
10-23-2009, 05:34 PM
I may be missing something, but it looks like this amendment only prohibits government funding from going to companies that require arbitration for certain issues. Nothing wrong with that. If anything it's a prohibition against the government. These quasi-private institutions like the defense contracting industry cause all sorts of problems. They're effectually arms of the government, yet they're protected as private institutions. I think I'd vote for this amendment if I were a senator.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-23-2009, 05:53 PM
Here are the rest:

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/


From www.RepublicansForRape.org


Well the good news is that this should make it that much easier to get Democrats to consider supporting the Republican Party :rolleyes:


And can you believe it.. These guys actually used free market and contract law to support their position!! Well if they were right I'd expect to see Ron Paul on the Republicans for Rape website, but guess what? Ron Paul isn't on the website.. but let this guy put you through the mental exercise it required to vote against this bill...


YouTube - Republicans For Rape (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFCBY7Jmhlo)


This was a Senate bill, so obviously Ron Paul did not vote. Apparently defense contractor KBR made some 19 yr old girl sign a contract that stated in the case of rape or sexual assault she does not have the right to go to court, she has to go through a KBR arbitrator. The problem is that this girl was gang raped by several employees, then locked her into a shipping container when she tried to inform higher authority. When she finally did report it to KBR, they tried to silence her and told her not to seek charges. Then when she did go to court, she was denied. What is that all about? You can't sign a work contract to consent to being assaulted, can you? This seems like the kind of contract the government shouldn't be able to enforce anyway. There are certain type of contracts that cannot be enforced by government, I believe this to be one.


Here's John Stewart on this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts


First: No one made anyone sign anything. She signed it of her own volition.
Second: The contract stipulated that CIVIL suits would be settled by a third party, not in a court.
Third: No one is denying her "day in court", that is criminal court.

Lastly, I would vote against this bill also, on the basis that the Government has no right to alter lawful contracts, and secondly, should not be in the business of telling private companies what they can, or cannot put into contract (Yes, they are private, just because the Government pays them does not make them public, otherwise that swings the door open that ANY business conducting ANY commerce with the Fed is public) maybe now people might actually read what they sign next time? What happens when the Government starts becoming even more paternal than it is. People all ready don't take responsibility for their actions.

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-23-2009, 05:56 PM
Considering all government contractors act as extentions of the government (simply calling them 'contractors' and 'private' companies doesn't alter the fact they take tax-payer money to do outsourced government employee jobs) I do support the government designing the contracts.

If we thought the government should have no right to tell a contracted business how to operate, should we not be against HR-1207? No it's not different. Look at the morality. We want HR-1207 to reign in this private business, and probably use the audit as a weapon to dismantle it.

I do not think any employer, that hires a business to provide a service should be condemned for looking into how the business operates. If you owned a company, and you hired an outside cleaning company to handle your facilities, would you not feel obliged to renegotiate if you found out the company you hired only hires illegal immigrants and kills babies? It IS your business, because you're paying the company.



I would argue, that the government SHOULD NOT be contracting as much as it does. Especially when it comes to war. Unless the services provided are too specialized for the government (government outsources troops, and it pays companies for weapons, the weapons make sense, the mercs do not).

As long as the government is contracting, it should hold its employees to the same standards as it holds to itself.

Logic much? The FED is an immoral institution. A lawful contract, signed of her own volition is the same? Serious? :eek:

NYgs23
10-23-2009, 06:03 PM
the Government has no right to alter lawful contracts, and secondly, should not be in the business of telling private companies what they can, or cannot put into contract...

I respect the sanctity of contract as much as anyone, but the thing is, they're not saying that. They're just prohibiting funding companies that do that.

Liberty Star
10-23-2009, 06:11 PM
This is freaking incredible. Nice looking girl in this clip is right, these Republicans are on pilitical suicide track.

Such fatalist GOP screw ups are the very reason Barack Obama is running America today and GOPers are little more than icompetent Michael Steele's loyal subjects and followers. Should make this video go viral among all female base of GOP.

dannno
10-23-2009, 06:13 PM
First: No one made anyone sign anything. She signed it of her own volition.
Second: The contract stipulated that CIVIL suits would be settled by a third party, not in a court.
Third: No one is denying her "day in court", that is criminal court.

Lastly, I would vote against this bill also, on the basis that the Government has no right to alter lawful contracts, and secondly, should not be in the business of telling private companies what they can, or cannot put into contract (Yes, they are private, just because the Government pays them does not make them public, otherwise that swings the door open that ANY business conducting ANY commerce with the Fed is public) maybe now people might actually read what they sign next time? What happens when the Government starts becoming even more paternal than it is. People all ready don't take responsibility for their actions.

Is there any situation where you could see the girl successfully and rightly suing the company sans said contract? I mean, consider that there were MANY employees involved, they locked her away and then the company as a whole tried to cover it up.

Do you file a criminal case against all those involved? What about the people in the company who tried to cover it up? Would you hold them criminally responsible? What if they were just following company policy?

See that bold question there? That's where I have a problem.. if a company has standard procedures that help protect other employees from being prosecuted for rape, then I can see a valid case being filed against this company because it allowed for a situation where she was injured. I don't care if she signed a contract saying that she wouldn't sue them in cases of rape, you can't morally uphold a contract like that. You can't morally uphold a contract to let one person take a pound of flesh from another person, either. The person who makes those contracts is obviously attempting fraud or has some weird sick fantasies. I'm all for upholding contracts, but I believe it has been pretty well established that there are some contracts that are invalid from the beginning. I'm not a lawyer and cannot communicate what those rules are in plain language, but I have a pretty good idea when a contract is able to be upheld and when it is not based purely off my moral compass.

I've never seen any of the Saw movies, but I heard about them.. imagine the main character and some of the messed up contracts they would make with desperate people... that's the kind of contract I'm referring to. You can't have a contract valid where the outcome results in direct physical harm (for example, if A occurs, then X will die), though they may be a part of the terms (IF person X is harmed, then A)... C'mon Danke help me out here..

Austrian Econ Disciple
10-23-2009, 06:20 PM
Is there any situation where you could see the girl successfully and rightly suing the company sans said contract? I mean, consider that there were MANY employees involved, they locked her away and then the company as a whole tried to cover it up.

Do you file a criminal case against all those involved? What about the people in the company who tried to cover it up? Would you hold them criminally responsible? What if they were just following company policy?

See that bold question there? That's where I have a problem.. if a company has standard procedures that help protect other employees from being prosecuted for rape, then I can see a valid case being filed against this company because it allowed for a situation where she was injured. I don't care if she signed a contract saying that she wouldn't sue them in cases of rape, you can't morally uphold a contract like that. You can't morally uphold a contract to let one person take a pound of flesh from another person, either. The person who makes those contracts is obviously attempting fraud or has some weird sick fantasies. I'm all for upholding contracts, but I believe it has been pretty well established that there are some contracts that are invalid from the beginning. I'm not a lawyer and cannot communicate what those rules are in plain language, but I have a pretty good idea when a contract is able to be upheld and when it is not based purely off my moral compass.

No one said she couldn't get compensated monetarily. Merely, that it will be handled by a third party abitrator. Secondly, everyone involved in the action and coverup should be criminally charged. What does that have to do with the bill, or this contract? Do you understand that the contract has nothing to do with criminal proceedings whatsoever? It only dealt with civil suits.

Government needs to not get involved whatsoever, period. If they don't like certain contracts, then don't contract with that company in the future. Do you need a law to do that? No. I don't play petty emotional games. I'm a strict libertarian. This is all petty politics and some of you guys here are getting suckered in.

Lastly, people should be able to contract whatever they want. If they want to sell their organs, limbs, flesh, what have you then so be it! Who are you to tell another person what they can, or cannot do with their own body? The only moral position is the position of private property, and contract.

LibForestPaul
10-23-2009, 06:52 PM
So if you are hired by a company, and you sign an abitration clause, and then the company president analy rapes you in his basement for a year, you can't sue. Right. The minute the company violates your liberty, commits a crime against you, the contract is null and void.

specsaregood
10-23-2009, 06:53 PM
I've never seen any of the Saw movies, but I heard about them..

You should check the first 3 out. I'm not a fan of horror movies but those are great.

As was said before, I have no problem with this amendment since it only affects companies that are sucking off the sweet juicy teat of the american taxpayer. And the Republicans are simply stupid for voting against it.

specsaregood
10-23-2009, 06:54 PM
So if you are hired by a company, and you sign an abitration clause, and then the company president analy rapes you in his basement for a year, you can't sue. Right. The minute the company violates your liberty, commits a crime against you, the contract is null and void.

It doesn't sound like the company did anything to you in that scenario. The company president did and should face criminal charges and a possible personal civil suit.

t0rnado
10-23-2009, 08:16 PM
This is proof that the government is useless. The government just acts as a middleman between We The People and KBR. The more restrictions that are placed on what the government can buy, the better. The Franken Amendment restricts who the government can buy from, so it's actually promoting limiting the government.

NYgs23
10-23-2009, 09:03 PM
Government needs to not get involved whatsoever, period. If they don't like certain contracts, then don't contract with that company in the future.

For the third time, that's just what the amendment is doing; all it does it prohibit the GOVERNMENT from giving the funds in the bill to companies with those contracts.

And the more I look at this, the more it seems like another attempt by a lobbying group to use free market rhetoric to push its special interest agenda. What is anti-free market about NOT giving the merchants of death tax dollars? Ridiculous!