Republican Party supports gang rape

[Lucifer Baphomet]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/

[Seven]

It should be illegal for a contract to have a "consent to rape" clause.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Perhaps the woman shouldn't have signed such a contract. That clause exists/existed for a reason.

[Lucifer Baphomet]

Yes, blame the woman, Stank.

[Freya]

It should be illegal for a contract to have a "consent to rape" clause.

Sounds like a bdsm contract.

[Morgan Genna]

user laughed so hard that they peed a little:
Stankleberry Sullivan

I have this joker on forum ignore but his disease still leaks out of the cracks.

[Sansarya]

It's not just the senators who voted. U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for 1 in 3 women to be raped in military service to their country. There's even an awareness day:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Military_rape_awareness_week_2009.vp.html

ETA: quoting Ayumi from the SLU forum:

A 2004 study of women veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, who were seeking help for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), found that 71% said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.
The VA study (referenced in the title above) was funded by the Army Medical Research Department and found that 30% of women veterans said they were raped while serving. That is almost one in three.
Thirty seven percent of the attempted raped and raped women in the VA study also reported being raped more than once and 14% of them reported being gang raped. This study also discovered that 75% of raped women in the military failed to report it.

There's a video over there also of a woman reporting about being raped twice while in Iraq to educate people about rape in the military. Appalled.

[Lucifer Baphomet]

The Clause is actually a restriction on their employees taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.

The vote was to restrict companies including such clauses.

30 republicans in the senate, which is welkl over half of them, voted against this restriction.

[Freya]

Good article.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Many of them likely voted against it because Franken is such a fucking tool.

[Don Mill]

Luc, I know you are well intentioned, but do give little Stankie a break.

You see, in little Stankie's little mind the possibility of a gang rape is the closest he will ever get to see a woman's vagina. I am sure that he is only dreaming with the chance to see a naked woman in a medium different than his monitor or bathroom magazines.

The fact that is immoral is just a side problem. The fact that the woman deserve her right at the court is meaningless. After all, she accepted the job offer, so she should suck it up and enjoy the ride*

So please, let little Stankie have his wet dreams alone.

:hug:

* just paraphrasing little Stankie here; I do not adhere nor believe this statement to be valid in any way, shape or form

[Lucifer Baphomet]

Many of them likely voted against it because Franken is such a fucking tool.

So voting against a motion to give employees of defence subcontractors legal protections from sexual and physical assault, and discrimination, is justified, because in your eyes, Franken is a tool.

You're fucking pathetic

[Sarah Nerd]

I just can't comprehend how this could have been voted against. Shows how little politicians really care for us.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

So voting against a motion to give employees of defence subcontractors legal protections from sexual and physical assault, and discrimination, is justified, because in your eyes, Franken is a tool.

You're fucking pathetic


They already had legal protection.

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.

So yes, I think it'd be acceptable to vote against this because Franken is a tool. I would.

But you go on whining about Republicans liking gang rape. Be proud of your foolishness.

[Joy Honey]

It's "overreaching" to provide protection to citizens and it somehow violates due process? What?

That seals it for me, I previously only thought Jeff Sessions was a tool. Now I know.

Disgusting.

[Lucifer Baphomet]

Thank fuck that 11 republican senators supported this motion.

Thankfully they have more human decency than the 30 who voted against it...

And yes Stank, your stance on this makes me question your human decency.

Yes I can understand a clause that says the employer wouldnt be responsible if she was kidnapped and raped by insurgents..

BUT THESE WERE HER CO WORKERS, AND THE CLAUSE COVERED THAT TOO

Just how fucking stupid are you stank?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Thank fuck that 11 republican senators supported this motion.

Thankfully they have more human decency than the 30 who voted against it...

And yes Stank, your stance on this makes me question your human decency.

Yes I can understand a clause that says the employer wouldnt be responsible if she was kidnapped and raped by insurgents..

BUT THESE WERE HER CO WORKERS, AND THE CLAUSE COVERED THAT TOO

Just how fucking stupid are you stank?


Again, nobody was forced to sign that contract. Yes yes, I know, leftists consider all humans, no matter their age, to be children who aren't fit to make decisions for themselves. But that's not how things work.

It always makes me laugh when lefties start preaching about human decency. Yet another thing you people have no concept of.

[Seven]

Back to that clause - I'm going to ask a lawyer this, but I don't think a contract can govern a crime. I mean, an agreement to waive the right to seek redress for a crime may not be legal.

What I'm thinking (for example) is that if you have two knuckleheads, A and B, and A contracts B for a murder for hire, A has no grounds to sue B if he doesn't do the murder. He can't use the contract as a basis for a suit, because the contract is illegal.

Many of them likely voted against it because Franken is such a fucking tool.

They shouldn't be in the legislature if they are so petty.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Back to that clause - I'm going to ask a lawyer this, but I don't think a contract can govern a crime. I mean, an agreement to waive the right to seek redress for a crime may not be legal.

What I'm thinking (for example) is that if you have two knuckleheads, A and B, and A contracts B for a murder for hire, A has no grounds to sue B if he doesn't do the murder. He can't use the contract as a basis for a suit, because the contract is illegal.


If the contract were illegal, this wouldn't be an issue.

[Joy Honey]

KBR's employment contract being made?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jmo1520l.jpg

[Lexxi]

.

[Asher Bertrand]

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.


Stank really wants someone to ask him what the reason was. He's said it twice! Won't someone please take the bait?

[Gabe Lippmann]

I didn't read the bill, but this statement is fairly typical

Murkowski said that she considered the arguments that Sessions made about the amendment being too expansive before she decided to vote for the legislation.

Does anyone know what the expansive parts were or why someone might not want them?

Not that this is definitely the case here, but often politicians voting against a bill aren't necessarily saying "I am in favor of gang rape [or whatever the situation]" but rather "I am against having to be forced to vote in favor of the last section you slipped in this bill just because the rest of it makes sense".

Same media discussion tactic was used to decry Obama in regards to certain abortion topics.

While these politicians may, in fact, be proponents of gang rape, I will not jump straight to that without having a look at the long print.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Stank really wants someone to ask him what the reason was. He's said it twice! Won't someone please take the bait?


No I don't. I am just stating the obvious for people who have a hard time seeing it.

[GradyE]

You want obvious? YOU CAN'T HANDLE OBVIOUS!

http://i40.tinypic.com/szkdpy.jpg

[Gabe Lippmann]

no homo

[Eirik Haefnir]

These kind of gang rapists, and the politicians who support them, should all face the punishment of being anally impaled with a rusty screwdriver covered in a thick gooey layer of pure capsaicin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Toxicity).

That'd teach em.

[Jen]

It should be illegal for a contract to have a "consent to rape" clause.

Ya think? ROFLMAO


[I totally agree, just the tenor of that sentence cracked me up]

[Jen]

They already had legal protection.

Well, evidently NOT.

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.

A contract doesn't excuse a corporation from the law, no matter how much the corporation wishes it weren't so. And if you were gang raped, dear, you would be all about nailing the bastards who shattered your world. Then again, it might be an educational experience you will still get to have.

So yes, I think it'd be acceptable to vote against this because Franken is a tool. I would.
I'm sorry you hate your mother.

But you go on whining about Republicans liking gang rape. Be proud of your foolishness.

If I had you in front of me, you would seriously retract the word "whining" after I got done with you, little boy.

[Eirik Haefnir]

And if you were gang raped, dear, you would be all about nailing the bastards who shattered your world.

You're talking about Stank. He'd probably be begging for more.

[Don Mill]

You're talking about Stank. He'd probably be begging for more.

But it wouldn't be "gang rape" it would be called "though love"

:hug:

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Well, evidently NOT.

A contract doesn't excuse a corporation from the law, no matter how much the corporation wishes it weren't so. And if you were gang raped, dear, you would be all about nailing the bastards who shattered your world. Then again, it might be an educational experience you will still get to have.

I'm sorry you hate your mother.

If I had you in front of me, you would seriously retract the word "whining" after I got done with you, little boy.


Perhaps you should read more about this case. I don't think you understand the situation. The woman didn't sign a contract that said "men are allowed to gang rape me and there's nothing I can do about it".

If I were raped, they'd have to completely knock me out or kill me to get their thingies into me. I have a strong ass and jaw. If someone in my family were raped, I would torture and murder the rapist myself.

Why would I retract the word "whining"?

[Io Zeno]

So your suggestion is the woman go on a killing spree, that is your solution.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

So your suggestion is the woman go on a killing spree, that is your solution.


I didn't suggest anything, I was explaining what I'd do if I were related to her. I would hunt them all down.

[GradyE]

I didn't suggest anything, I was explaining what I'd do if I were related to her. I would hunt them all down.

Who's going to play you in the Tarantino movie? :)

[Lucifer Baphomet]

Will Charles Bronson be playing you, and will Michael Winner direct?

/fixed

[io Kukulcan]

I love how easily you guys can trick Stankleberry into defending rape.
Well played.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

I love how easily you guys can trick Stankleberry into defending rape.
Well played.


I remember when I defended rape. That was a dark day.

Because that's what this Franken thing was. A law against rape. Good job with the reading.

[Io Zeno]

I didn't suggest anything, I was explaining what I'd do if I were related to her. I would hunt them all down.

No that was your response to "she can't do anything".

The woman didn't sign a contract that said "men are allowed to gang rape me and there's nothing I can do about it".


Then you went about describing a BTK type scenario, on the part of some male relative, should she have one, willing to go to jail for murder because she can't get any legal justice if she is raped.

You are dumber than a bag of hair.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

No that was your response to "she can't do anything".

Then you went about describing a BTK type scenario, on the part of some male relative, should she have one, willing to go to jail for murder because she can't get any legal justice if she is raped.

You are dumber than a bag of hair.


No, it was my response to:

And if you were gang raped, dear, you would be all about nailing the bastards who shattered your world.

I don't know why so many of you have such a problem with just reading the words that are there. You're always adding extra things that aren't even close to being in my posts. I didn't say that taking care of justice herself was her only option. I was just explaining my philosophy.

I might be dumber than hair, but at least I know how to read and comprehend words. Where does that put you on the dumbness chart?

[Io Zeno]

Ah, your philosophy.

lulz

[Io Zeno]

So, what are her other options, Stank. I mean other than becoming a one woman killing machine?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

So, what are her other options, Stank. I mean other than becoming a one woman killing machine?


You guys didn't even read anything about this, did you?

[Envoy Costagravas]

Who's going to play you in the Tarantino movie? :)
Crispin Glover gets my vote:

YouTube - Crispin Glover on Letterman

[Lucifer Baphomet]

Ah, your philosophy.

lulz

He got it from watching the "Death Wish" movies

[Freya]

Many of them likely voted against it because Franken is such a fucking tool.

No he's not.

[Jen]

Perhaps you should read more about this case. I don't think you understand the situation.

In the words of the Great Lizard, "No U".

I've been following this story since spring. I know whereof I speak, many particulars that perhaps you hadn't heard.

The "no-bid" contract is only the financial end of the shyte KBR et al have been getting away with, in our name, on our nickel, because of the cronyism of the people within the ouroburos [aka beltway].

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105153315

You see, Stank, I choose to fight for a world that is not founded upon endemic sociopathy. Being a human being who believes that aspiring to growing to be a better person is the point of life, it fits my philosophy.

Strongly suggested viewing:

YouTube - THE CORPORATION [1/23] What is a Corporation?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

No he's not.


He is (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0104/012804-franken.htm).

http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2045603.jpg

[Vengence Opus]

Dear Stanklebeans,

Stop having accidents!

Thanks,

:veng:

[Fmeh]

Many of them likely voted against it because Franken is such a fucking tool.

I thought the republican party used logic and reason, not partisanship and emotion. :rolleyes:

[Fmeh]

They already had legal protection.

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.

So yes, I think it'd be acceptable to vote against this because Franken is a tool. I would.

But you go on whining about Republicans liking gang rape. Be proud of your foolishness.

So, I take it you think that as long as it's in a contract, slavery should be re-leagalized eh? I mean, if it's in the contract, it should be all good, right? :rolleyes:

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

So, I take it you think that as long as it's in a contract, slavery should be re-leagalized eh? I mean, if it's in the contract, it should be all good, right? :rolleyes:


That would not be a legal contract, obviously. :rolleyes:

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

I thought the republican party used logic and reason, not partisanship and emotion. :rolleyes:


I don't know where you found any partisanship or emotion in what I posted. While it is true that being a lefty is quite lame, that is not the reason that Al Franken is a tool. Not giving tools what they want is completely logical, and has nothing to do with emotion.

[Freya]

He is (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0104/012804-franken.htm).

http://images.mylot.com/userImages/images/postphotos/2045603.jpg

lol, he's still not. Just because you don't like him doesn't make him a tool.

[Io Zeno]

You guys didn't even read anything about this, did you?

Yes, but I was going to play a game with you about private arbitration.

Now I'm out of time.

[Fmeh]

That would not be a legal contract, obviously. :rolleyes:

Yes, but you seem to support a contract that allowed what happened to this woman to happen--it's in the contract, so it must be ok :rolleyes:

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Yes, but you seem to support a contract that allowed what happened to this woman to happen--it's in the contract, so it must be ok :rolleyes:


No, I am trying to help people understand why people voted against this bill. I really don't give a crap about the contract.

People shouldn't sign contracts that contain things they don't want to agree to. That's common sense.

[Fmeh]

I don't know where you found any partisanship or emotion in what I posted. While it is true that being a lefty is quite lame, that is not the reason that Al Franken is a tool. Not giving tools what they want is completely logical, and has nothing to do with emotion.

If only you had any clue how ridiculous that statement is...

You're completely wrong--it has EVERYTHING to do with emotion. Maybe that's your problem, you get emotion and logic confused with each other.

Their job is NOT to deny legislation based on disliking the person who initiated the legislation.

[Jen]

That would not be a legal contract, obviously. :rolleyes:

But one that comprised a woman being gang-raped would be.

Gotcha.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

But one that comprised a woman being gang-raped would be.

Gotcha.


Again, the contract didn't say "we are allowed to gang rape you".

[Joy Honey]

Why Would United States Senators Vote to Protect Corporations Over Rape Victims? (http://www.enewspf.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10915:why-would-united-states-senators-vote-to-protect-corporations-over-rape-victims&catid=88888891&Itemid=88890121)

[Jen]

...

any way we can get an "autoscrewdriver" feature in here?

[Fmeh]

No, I am trying to help people understand why people voted against this bill.
Really? You said it was because they didn't like Franken.

I really don't give a crap about the contract.

That's obvious. That's why you think the stipulations behind the contract were ok.

People shouldn't sign contracts that contain things they don't want to agree to. That's common sense.

Ok, and what were the things that they didn't want to agree to? That we shouldn't support to companies who do what was done to this woman? What's the specific part that they disagreed with?

[Fmeh]

Again, the contract didn't say "we are allowed to gang rape you".

It didn't specifically say that, but it DID allow them to use a loophole in the contract to do that very thing, so what difference does it make whether it actually had that phrase in the contract?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Really? You said it was because they didn't like Franken.

That's obvious. That's why you think the stipulations behind the contract were ok.

Ok, and what were the things that they didn't want to agree to? That we shouldn't support to companies who do what was done to this woman? What's the specific part that they disagreed with?


I was kind of joking when I made the completely unfounded statement that many of them likely voted against it because Franken is a tool. I'm sure we'll hear from many of them in the next day or so, and they will give their own reasons.

I think all legal contracts are "ok". That is what laws are for, making things "ok". Franken's thing had nothing to do with changing the law that governs contracts like that. It prevents the US government from doing business with companies that use such legal contracts.

[Jen]

I think all legal contracts are "ok". That is what laws are for, making things "ok". Franken's thing had nothing to do with changing the law that governs contracts like that. It prevents the US government from doing business with companies that use such legal contracts.

And the reason the US government SHOULD do business with companies that use these contracts is?

[Joy Honey]

I was kind of joking when I made the completely unfounded statement that many of them likely voted against it because Franken is a tool. I'm sure we'll hear from many of them in the next day or so, and they will give their own reasons.

I think all legal contracts are "ok". That is what laws are for, making things "ok". Franken's thing had nothing to do with changing the law that governs contracts like that. It prevents the US government from doing business with companies that use such legal contracts.

Is that a bad thing? I wouldn't want to do business with a company that had such a clause in their employment contracts. I certainly don't want to reward their behavior with another government contract.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

And the reason the US government SHOULD do business with companies that use these contracts is?


They provide very useful services that nobody else does.

[Asher Bertrand]

You are very smart for hair.

Very dumb for a person, however.

[Freya]

They provide very useful services that nobody else does.

One free gang rape with purchase?

[Jen]

Question, Stank.

Why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan right now? Why are we making war there? The essence of the bottom line, to your mind? I'm asking sincerely.

[ps it relates to the discussion at hand, I promise]

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Question, Stank.

Why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan right now? Why are we making war there? The essence of the bottom line, to your mind? I'm asking sincerely.

[ps it relates to the discussion at hand, I promise]



There is no way to break it down to some "essence". There were many reasons for each invasion.

[Circe Timtam]

It's not just the senators who voted. U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for 1 in 3 women to be raped in military service to their country. There's even an awareness day:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Military_rape_awareness_week_2009.vp.html

ETA: quoting Ayumi from the SLU forum:



There's a video over there also of a woman reporting about being raped twice while in Iraq to educate people about rape in the military. Appalled.


And I am guessing that these numbers are based just on those that report the rapes. Who knows how many do not.

[Jen]

There is no way to break it down to some "essence". There were many reasons for each invasion.

So, there were not any philosophical reasons at all for these wars? No overwhelmingly "American Dream" based drive for us to be there?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

So, there were not any philosophical reasons at all for these wars? No overwhelmingly "American Dream" based drive for us to be there?


There were very many reasons, including philosophical ones.

[Jen]

I see your mastery of CYA is complete, although the courage of your convictions appears to have been bankrupted in the economic collapse.

I'm not going to pursue this further, one of the downsides of fibro is that emotional overload literally gives me pain. I'll just quote Winston Churchill at you and stop there.

"...I have heard it said that the government had no mandate. Such a doctrine is wholly inadmissible. The responsibility for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate!"

~W.C.


Still recommend you watch that documentary linked above, Stank.
Might give you some new and interesting thoughts.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

I see your mastery of CYA is complete, although the courage of your convictions appears to have been bankrupted in the economic collapse.


I thought you were working towards some sort of point. How am I covering my ass? I've always said that there were very many reasons for each invasion, no matter how the economy was doing.

[Jen]

Oh, fuck you. You smell a valid point coming and play lawyer, and not convincingly.

IF the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan to overturn despotism and corruption and eliminate terrorism, then why is our government supporting the same behavior in the no-bid contract cronies of the Bushites? And if the US government is not about protecting its citizens, what the hell is its purpose in the first place?

Deregulation is a bogus practice and these events are a direct result of all of it.

I've posted this clip many times, and will probably post it many more:
YouTube - Part 8- Greg Palast and RFK in NYC- MayDay 2007

Now seriously, I have to stop. Good night.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Oh, fuck you. You smell a valid point coming and play lawyer, and not convincingly.

IF the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan to overturn despotism and corruption and eliminate terrorism, then why is our government supporting the same behavior in the no-bid contract cronies of the Bushites? And if the US government is not about protecting its citizens, what the hell is its purpose in the first place


I guess you think that I would have normally somehow boiled down reasons for extremely complex things like wars into a sentence if I didn't smell this supposed point coming? I wouldn't have.

Our government is/was not supporting despotism, corruption, or terrorism in working with Halliburton while they used this contract. You'll hear from these people who voted against this, and they will explain to you why they voted the way they did.

I don't know much about it, but I assume the contract contained what it did because war zones are very complex places, and allowing employees to sue the company would cause that company to no longer be able to exist, because of the constant lawsuits.

Nobody is forced to work for them. Nobody is forced to sign the contract. People going into a war zone certainly must understand that there are very many risks involved.

Yes, unfortunately people get treated badly by the system sometimes. That's not always a valid reason to change it, because the changes may cause even more pain to even more people. See, there is this thing called reality. Nothing is perfect.

Fuck you too.

[Joy Honey]

Wow, just wow.

So a person has a violent crime committed against them and has absolutely no recourse - except KBR arbitration, which is really no recourse at all, considering KBR comes out on top in 80% of arbitration.

But you just keep on telling yourself that "it's for the greater good" so you can sleep at night, k?

[Jen]

And there's the fundamental difference we'll have to have, Stank, re. the "system". The "system" is gamed, rigged, and completely FUBAR, and should be changed. Tweaking is how you do it.

If one doesn't continually tweak the system, it will burn down. This is because we are organic beings and not machines, and no golem out there should have priority over the rights of the fragile people it impacts.

The idea that the war is more important than the citizens it is supposedly being waged to protect is bullshit. There is no greater priority. It's like the Marines being told that ordinance is more important than human lives. That's a load of shit.

And actually, I take back the fuck you. I like fucking. You'd ruin it.

[Joy Honey]

Also:

In Baghdad in 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones claims, she was gang-raped by her colleagues at KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton. Her injuries, including torn pectoral muscles, tearing of her vagina and anus and ruptured breast implants, were confirmed by a physician, who said they were consistent with rape. He then handed the rape kit over to her employer, KBR. And KBR, according to Jones, locked her in a storage container, posted an armed guard outside of her door and denied her food and water.

The rape kit given to KBR disappeared, not to be seen again until 2007. When it resurfaced, it was missing doctors' notes and photographs – which, along with the fact that Jones was drugged and could identify only one of her assailants, effectively annihilated her chances in a criminal case. KBR also denied her the right to take them even to a civil court, saying that what had been done to her was a mere "personal injury in the workplace", and could – according to her contract – be resolved only by arbitration.

. . .

But go on and defend those poor, downtrodden corporations with their lucrative government contracts, because they really need people coming to their defense.

Edited to add: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/15/kbr-halliburton-rape-jamie-leigh-jones

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Wow, just wow.

So a person has a violent crime committed against them and has absolutely no recourse - except KBR arbitration, which is really no recourse at all, considering KBR comes out on top in 80% of arbitration.

But you just keep on telling yourself that "it's for the greater good" so you can sleep at night, k?


Well, they do have recourse. Just not through the US legal system. Because they signed a contract that didn't allow them to. Had they not signed that legal contract, they'd not be in that position. It's really simple.

[Lucifer Baphomet]

It's really simple.

Like you?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

And there's the fundamental difference we'll have to have, Stank, re. the "system". The "system" is gamed, rigged, and completely FUBAR, and should be changed. Tweaking is how you do it.

If one doesn't continually tweak the system, it will burn down. This is because we are organic beings and not machines, and no golem out there should have priority over the rights of the fragile people it impacts.



Yes, I remember when I argued that we must not change anything. Whew, that was awesome.

No, actually I have just been trying to explain to you dumbasses that voting against this law had nothing to do with Republicans being pro-rape.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

It's really weird arguing with people that are so bad at comprehending words. Like I could pretty much say anything, it doesn't matter because you won't understand it anyway, and you'll just make up your own version of what I said. Purple monkey dishwashers.

[Jen]

Well, they do have recourse. Just not through the US legal system. Because they signed a contract that didn't allow them to. Had they not signed that legal contract, they'd not be in that position. It's really simple.

The US legal system, then, takes second place to a corporation's decree.

So the corporation is more important than the government of the country.

So the rule of law- the only thing that made this country great, by the way- is no longer what matters.

So profits come before human rights, and laws, and governments, and everything else.

Yeah.

Values you can't buy.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Also:

But go on and defend those poor, downtrodden corporations with their lucrative government contracts, because they really need people coming to their defense.


What makes you believe that these claims are true? Evidence, or desire to believe them?

[Freya]

Purple monkey dishwashers.


ya, right back atcha buddy :argh: :p

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

The US legal system, then, takes second place to a corporation's decree.


The US legal system does not apply to US citizens that are not inside the US, generally.

[Joy Honey]

Explain, oh wise one.

What are their reasons? Jeff Sessions says its "overreaching" into the private sector. Lat time I looked, rape is a crime - and a violent one at that. Explain how this is "overreaching" and how it violates due process.

If anything, the victim is denied due process, but I digress.

[Govi]

They already had legal protection.

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.

This is the same stupid (and now, illegal) BS found in every working place in America, in my lifetime. If a woman didn't like the sexual harassment, the stupid jokes, the not-very-thinly veiled propositions from bosses, etc., she was told that she didn't have to work there. Quit, go home, take care of your children. Fuckers.

[Jen]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/video/video.php?v=80395170283&ref=mf

[Gabe Lippmann]

The contract should only prevent civil suits. I can't say would because the DoD wasn't prosecuting and that failure is another issue and essentially the real problem.

The amendment seems a tad redundant when getting the DoD to enforce the law is what is at issue, not the waiving of rights to a civil suit in an employment contract.

[Jen]

I only disagree with you there because of context: This is part of the "wild west" scenarios that ensued with the whole no-bid situation, and currently they're talking about penalizing corporations on other fronts, including ripoffs. This is a way of reinstating some of the regulations that once were in place to protect the rest of us from the depredations we've seen as a result of giving these guys free rein.

For me, putting American citizens in harm's way while ripping off American citizens, and refusing to take responsibility for any of it is all part of the same ball of wax. If a corporation wants the big contracts, they should be capable of hiring people who behave like civilized human beings. That's why they're supposed to be the best, right?

[Gabe Lippmann]

That's probably correct, but the waiving of civil suits is a long way from denying someone due process, which is the tenor of some of the discussion. I wanted to delineate a difference between the two.

If we want to argue about the waiving of civil suits, it becomes a much broader issue in my mind.

[Mulch]

No he's not.

http://mulched.blogspot.com/2009/06/3-al-franken.html

Well, they do have recourse. Just not through the US legal system. Because they signed a contract that didn't allow them to. Had they not signed that legal contract, they'd not be in that position. It's really simple.

It's really weird arguing with people that are so bad at comprehending words. Like I could pretty much say anything, it doesn't matter because you won't understand it anyway, and you'll just make up your own version of what I said. Purple monkey dishwashers.

The US legal system does not apply to US citizens that are not inside the US, generally.

stankleberry wins, this one

a troll isnt an idiot...

check his other media, the guy is self aware

That's probably correct, but the waiving of civil suits is a long way from denying someone due process, which is the tenor of some of the discussion. I wanted to delineate a difference between the two.

If we want to argue about the waiving of civil suits, it becomes a much broader issue in my mind.

i think denying someone due process IS the waving of civil rights

[Io Zeno]

Large corporations do this all the time as a get out of jail free card. They would all love to have this waiver because that way they can have the most sexist, racist, discriminatory environment imaginable and never be held accountable for what results from it other than a fine.

There is no reason for the US to hand out contracts to slimeball companies who demand that their employees sign a cya contract that absolves them of any responsibility for their workplace when it comes to sexual assault or discrimination.

Further, private arbitration is heavily weighted toward the company, who chose the arbitrators. The only hope of some real court action against the company would be for the EEOC to file a federal case which is extremely rare.

[Sansarya]

I remember when I defended rape. That was a dark day.

Because that's what this Franken thing was. A law against rape. Good job with the reading.

:lmao:

[Gabe Lippmann]

i think denying someone due process IS the waving of civil rights

what does this have to do with what I wrote?

[Gabe Lippmann]

never be held accountable for what results from it other than a fine

They aren't not accountable in terms of the law. They are trying to minimize the fine part you are talking about, as in the financial penalty resulting from a civil suit.

[Io Zeno]

They aren't not accountable in terms of the law. They are trying to minimize the fine part you are talking about, as in the financial penalty resulting from a civil suit.

Right. What I meant was the payout they may have due to the arbitration, not a court fine or the result of losing a suit.

[Gabe Lippmann]

OK, but they are accountable, or are supposed to be, in terms of being prosecuted. The fact that the DoD wasn't following through on their duty to prosecute is a worse issue than the issue of contractual waivers as regards to civil suits (which is not denying someone their civil rights). This issue of the DoD failure is outside of what this amendment was addressing.

[Io Zeno]

OK, but they are accountable, or are supposed to be, in terms of being prosecuted. The fact that the DoD wasn't following through on their duty to prosecute is a worse issue than the issue of contractual waivers as regards to civil suits (which is not denying someone their civil rights). This issue of the DoD failure is outside of what this amendment was addressing.

I agree with you, totally.

[kita_dawg]

Everyone who has ever read and fully understood every word in the entire stack of every piece of paper they have ever signed (including online) please raise your hand.

Everyone who instead had the contracts explained to them, or otherwise were implied as to the contents according to their context of said paperwork, please turn around and fuck Stank with a rusty screwdriver.

[Joy Honey]

There was also that whole problem of "lost" evidence. How convenient. The rape kit got turned over to the company.

Damn near impossible to prosecute anyone when there's absolutely no evidence.

I'm just glad the woman was able to get a call out to her father who, in turn, called his representative in Congress to help her. Just to clarify, that representative is Republican, lest anyone think most Republicans are inhuman freaks who are more concerned about a company's bottom line than the well-being of said company's employees.

[kita_dawg]

Well, they do have recourse. Just not through the US legal system. Because they signed a contract that didn't allow them to. Had they not signed that legal contract, they'd not be in that position. It's really simple.

Not so sure the contract was legal. There must be a special loophole for military, which is how they got away with this.

In tenant law (as I am sure other areas as well) you cannot sign away your rights. They can put whatever the fuck they want to in that contract, but they cannot legally force you to do something that is against the law, even if you signed it. This also applies to them trying to get you to sign away your rights. The landlord can take it to court all they want, no matter how many times you signed it. But it will NOT stand. You cannot sign away your RIGHTS. I would have to find the exact wording (as it is different in every state) but I am pretty sure it is more than just you can't legally enforce a contract that goes against the law, it is illegal to even create such contracts and get someone to sign it. Which puts someone in an even worse place than just having an unenforceable piece of signed paper.

If someone wants to dig up the exact citation that says military/ government agencies etc. are exempt from such civil protections, then it might be worth a read. But it is late, and I am not invested enough in this convo to dig tonight. Just adding my two cents. :)

Edit to add:

Also, another thing worth looking in to...

If a US citizen commits a crime to another US citizen, can they be prosecuted (once they get back on US soil, of course) no matter where the crime was committed? I mean, we can extradite criminals from foreign lands, citizen or not, if the crime was on our soil... but do we take just as much responsibility if it was one of our citizens? Rape is a recognized crime under international law, not some obscure thing specific to our country... so I would think there is some law enforcement agency who wants a piece of that one...

[Cale Vinson]

I was kind of joking when I made the completely unfounded statement

Pro-tip: Humour is often enhanced if it comes with an element of surprise.

Helpful Cale

[Vivianne Draper]

If you sign a piece of paper saying that its ok for your spouse to kill you and put you out of your painful misery, that spouse would still be prosecuted for murder or at least manslaughter were he or she to do so.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Not so sure the contract was legal. There must be a special loophole for military, which is how they got away with this.


If the contract weren't legal, we'd not be hearing about any of this. Law works different in war zones. They are fucked up places.

And this had nothing to do with the military.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Pro-tip: Humour is often enhanced if it comes with an element of surprise.

Helpful Cale


Oh, I wasn't trying to make any of you whiners laugh.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Everyone who has ever read and fully understood every word in the entire stack of every piece of paper they have ever signed (including online) please raise your hand.

Everyone who instead had the contracts explained to them, or otherwise were implied as to the contents according to their context of said paperwork, please turn around and fuck Stank with a rusty screwdriver.


Ha, if you're heading into a war zone and you are signing a contract and you don't have a lawyer go through it and explain everything to you, you pretty much deserve to get fucked. No pun intended.

[Seven]

Okay, I talked with a lawyer about this clause, and he was astonished, even after I explained the purported intent.

I asked him my question about illegality of contracts and he said, "It's illegal to make a contract that is against public policy."

I said, "Is it really stated that vaguely?"

He said, "Yes. But I think it would be good grounds to challenge the legality of that clause."

There was a lot more to the conversation, but that was the gist of it.
.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Did you tell him that the contract was not for work inside the US?

[Seven]

Did you tell him that the contract was not for work inside the US?

He said that the contract would have to stipulate which law governed it. For instance, the laws of the state of Delaware, or Texas. Most likely it would be the state in which the company had its headquarters.

[Jen]

He said that the contract would have to stipulate which law governed it. For instance, the laws of the state of Delaware, or Texas. Most likely it would be the state in which the company had its headquarters.

Thanks to your friend.

[Shagazm]

The US legal system does not apply to US citizens that are not inside the US, generally.

I know this is a few posts up, but LOL :thumbsup:

How often do you visit the Netherlands and Japan, Stank? Cause I have some bad news for you.

[Cocoanut Koala]

shaggy read your email in game

i mean, i sent you a notecard

[Shagazm]

I did :fangirl: Thanks! Read yours now, shnookums

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

He said that the contract would have to stipulate which law governed it. For instance, the laws of the state of Delaware, or Texas. Most likely it would be the state in which the company had its headquarters.


I'm pretty sure if the contract were illegal, this would be a very simple case. This Franken thing had nothing to do with the legality of the contract.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Jen is having a lot of truth pains, huh? Awww, poor Jen.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

I know this is a few posts up, but LOL :thumbsup:

How often do you visit the Netherlands and Japan, Stank? Cause I have some bad news for you.


Never.

[Cocoanut Koala]

ok, soon as i get a chance, which will be later.

coco

[Shagazm]

Okay, Coco

[Shagazm]

Never.

No, you're supposed to say: "What's that?" Otherwise, I can't do my joke.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

No, you're supposed to say: "What's that?" Otherwise, I can't do my joke.


What's what?

[Shagazm]

What's what?

The bad news.

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

The bad news.


Give me the good news first.

[Jen]

Yes, I remember when I argued that we must not change anything. Whew, that was awesome.

No, actually I have just been trying to explain to you dumbasses that voting against this law had nothing to do with Republicans being pro-rape.

" They already had legal protection.

Also, nobody was forced to sign the contract. The stipulation was in the contract for a reason, obviously.

So yes, I think it'd be acceptable to vote against this because Franken is a tool. I would.

But you go on whining about Republicans liking gang rape. Be proud of your foolishness. "

[Shagazm]

Give me the good news first.

Pot is legal in the Netherlands and you can fiddle 14 year olds in Japan. Wanna know the bad news?

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Pot is legal in the Netherlands and you can fiddle 14 year olds in Japan. Wanna know the bad news?


Sure.

[Jen]

Give me the good news first.

The good news is that you will never visit anywhere but the town you live in, where everybody nods at your wisdom all day long.

[Shagazm]

Sure.

You're not allowed to partake in either cause you're still bound to U.S. law. :(

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

You're not allowed to partake in either cause you're still bound to U.S. law. :(


Pot isn't actually legal in Amsterdam. But US law doesn't apply there.

[Shagazm]

Pot isn't actually legal in Amsterdam. But US law doesn't apply there.

No, you're still bound by U.S. law even when you go abroad. I'm not sure if it still applies if you become a resident of the foreign country, but if you're just visiting, it does. If you go to a theoretical country where it's legal to murder people, you can still be tried for murder upon your return to the U.S.

[Shagazm]

har har har

[Jen]

This is not just US law that's been violated, it's international law. The fact that we're violating our own laws in not upholding the Geneva Conventions [to which we are signatories] is bad enough. But the fact that corporations in receipt of taxpayer dollars are condoning and covering up rapes of our own citizens and enlisted personnel and certain members of Congress and other small-brained barbarians do nothing to stop it is beyond criminal. It is subhuman.

"Rape has always been a part of war and violent conflict. However, it is only recently that rape has become codified in international law as a war crime, a crime against humanity and genocide."

http://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=200

[Don Mill]

My wife pointed me out to this website (http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/).

:hug:

[Gabe Lippmann]

No, you're still bound by U.S. law even when you go abroad. I'm not sure if it still applies if you become a resident of the foreign country, but if you're just visiting, it does. If you go to a theoretical country where it's legal to murder people, you can still be tried for murder upon your return to the U.S.

This is not true of all activity, but it is for certain categories of activity. Sex Tourism for instance.

[flavian]

http://www.republicansforrape.org/

[Shagazm]

This is not true of all activity, but it is for certain categories of activity. Sex Tourism for instance.

Whoops, my mistake. ^what he said

[Stankleberry Sullivan]

Hey, check out this web sight I just found: http://www.republicansforrape.org/

[Shagazm]

Hey, check out this web sight I just found: http://www.republicansforrape.org/

Which one are you?

[Jen Kawaguichi]

My wife pointed me out to this website (http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/).

:hug:

I dunno about that page. The belt looks more like a sash to me.

[Fatz]

The clause prevents the person for suing their employer in a civil court for actions of it's employees. She still can sue the employees responsible.

Contracts cannot contradict criminal statute--period, no ifs, ands or buts. The animals that did this should have been prosecuted and thrown in jail and I hope they were obviously.

I don't like arbitration agreements either because they exist only because they're unfair, but they're one of those things that virtually all employers have you sign because they would be stupid not to ONLY because it's legal. If a lawyer didn't have this language inserted in an employee handbook it would be tantamount to malpractice.

It's a shitty system, but come on, nobody on that list 'supports rape'.

[flavian]

The clause prevents the person for suing their employer in a civil court for actions of it's employees. She still can sue the employees responsible.

Contracts cannot contradict criminal statute--period, no ifs, ands or buts. The animals that did this should have been prosecuted and thrown in jail and I hope they were obviously.

I don't like arbitration agreements either because they exist only because they're unfair, but they're one of those things that virtually all employers have you sign because they would be stupid not to ONLY because it's legal. If a lawyer didn't have this language inserted in an employee handbook it would be tantamount to malpractice.

It's a shitty system, but come on, nobody on that list 'supports rape'.

Since it happen in iraq I wonder if she could even file criminal charges.

[Jen]

,...sidles in, whistling jauntily, pulls the pin, hustles the f'k out cackling maniacally...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html