[ETWolverine]

What is so hard to understand?

What is so hard to understand is why voting against a bill that deals with the issue of arbitration vs. trial is being construed as a "vote for rape"?

Whether you are in favor of the bill or against the bill doesn't matter. The bill isn't about rape.

Can you explain it?

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

Can you explain it?

Elliot

This righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

[ETWolverine]

This righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

Changing the subject again? Don't have an answer? Fine.

The difference is that I can cite the places where death panels are mentioned. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

So, back to the question at hand... can you explain why voting for or against this particular law is a vote for or against rape, if the law itself has NOTHING to do with rape?

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

This righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

No that was my line. Are you trying to channel me today?

You still can't see the obvious hypocrisy here which is a guy that complains about others posting about death panels saying Republicans are for rape.

[ETWolverine]

No that was my line. Are you trying to channel me today?

You still can't see the obvious hypocrisy here which is a guy that complains about others posting about death panels saying Republicans are for rape.

Speech,

NK thinks he's you. Not surprising that he's channelling your ideas... though he seems a bit slower than you.

Elliot

[galveston]

Ex,

Ya know I love you like a brother, but you DO post some weird things.

I think this one reaches the level of bizzarre.

[speechlesstx]

Ex,

Ya know I love you like a brother, but you DO post some wierd things.

I think this one reaches the level of bizzarre.

But he tries hard.

[asking]

The law, as excon explained, punishes corporations by withholding money from them if they try to force victims to settle their cases via arbitration.

How does that correspond to "making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers".

Which brings me back th the question I asked before...

First of all, it doesn't just withhold money, it withholds government contracts. It's basically saying, "I won't do business with you if you do this." It's like not recognizing another country diplomatically. So I think it's a bit stronger than just "withholding money" seems to suggest. Just as Title IX withholds federal funding from school districts that discriminate against women and girls. It's the same idea. Everybody wants those grants and contracts. Defense contractors LIVE on government contracts, so if you view a corporation as a legal person, it's a kind of death threat.

It doesn't make it "more difficult" for individuals to rape. It gives the company --any company -- a disincentive to allow the kind of "working" environment that leads to that kind of thing.

All this I assume all of you already know and you are just pretending to not get it because you like arguing with each other so much. :)

So carry on.

[excon]

It doesn't make it "more difficult" for individuals to rape. It gives the company --any company -- a disincentive to allow the kind of "working" environment that leads to that kind of thing.

All this I assume all of you already know and you are just pretending to not get it because you like arguing with each other so much.

Hello asking:

What you say above, is so glaringly obvious, even the dullest amongst us has got to get it. Therefore, you must be right. There IS another reason why they say the bunk they do...

But, it's not because they like to argue.. It's more insidious than that. It's because their hatred for ANYTHING Obama or Franken BLINDS them utterly to simple truths...

excon

[asking]

I guess my question is, What's at stake?

I disliked Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld quite a lot, but occasionally one of them would do something I actually agreed with, though my feeling was that their rationale for doing it was never what mine would have been.

So if people who hate Obama, moderates, and liberals, generally, hate them so much that they are blinded to the obvious, what's at stake for them? What would happen if they acknowledged that people with different values sometimes do good things or that people with similar values sometimes do terrible things?

Why is realizing that the good guys don't always behave and the bad guys aren't always so bad so scary?

[excon]

I guess my question is, What's at stake?
Why is realizing that the good guys don't always behave and the bad guys aren't always so bad so scary?

Hello again, asking,

In order to see what you're asking others to see, would require them to take off the blinders of ideology. What's at stake is a lifetime belief in an ideology which reached its apex under the dufus, but has since made a dramatic fall from grace into utter disrepute.

Failing to support THIS amendment for the REASONS given only increases their slide.

excon

[asking]

Yes. I just wish that 30 out of our 100 senators weren't wearing those blinders.

[tomder55]

Perhaps you should advise the White House to also take off those blinders since they also advised the Senate to reject the amendment??

[excon]

Perhaps you should advise the White House to also take off those blinders since they also advised the Senate to reject the amendment ?????????

Hello again, tom:

If I were to advise the White House on KBR, it would be to fire them, and bring them up on charges of murder and corruption.

excon

[asking]

The DoD opposed it because it's a hassle for them to have to look at subcontracts. They don't want to be in the position of having to be the enforcer. This is just a matter of legal wording. For example, if by taking a government contract, any arbitration wording becomes null and void, that's at least a start. In addition, including such wording would have to be punishable as well. Contractors would get the message.

I'm guessing the DoD also has to get along with those big contractors and felt obliged to oppose it by their ongoing relations with "the boys." I would not take their mild opposition as an argument against the idea that something needs to be done to allow people to take legal action if they are assaulted or harassed in these situations.

[asking]

I don't think anyone is going to fire KBR. They are a defacto branch of the military now. For better or worse.

The Franken amendment is forcing the government into a game of chicken. Good for him!

But the DoD and the White House are apparently asking for rewording. I just hope that doesn't significantly weaken the amendment.

[tomder55]

And rewording is the only thing I suggested also.

Multiple administrations from both parties have hired Halliburton and it's affiliates because they provide needed services that no one else seems to be able to effectively duplicate.

But what you have done is proven my point. The amendment was not so much the protection of a women from rape... that was the convenient pretext. The amendment was designed to zing Halliburton and also to throw a bone to the trial lawyer lobby.

[asking]

But what you have done is proven my point. The amendment was not so much the protection of a women from rape....that was the convenient pretext.

Nonsense.

Nothing I said proved your point. My point about the game of chicken was quite different from yours. Mine was that the government and defense contractors are mutually dependent enough that the contractors count on getting what they want--ie literally getting away with murder. But in fact, the federal government has the upper hand and should use its clout more often.

In this case, the government is asking for something totally reasonable.

Also, why are you so focused on Halliburton? Do you work for them?

[tomder55]

Also, why are you so focused on Halliburton? Do you work for them?

Lol... that is a non sequitur .Obviously if I take a position that favors Halliburton I must be employed by them. Excon uses the same tactic with me all the time asking if I have stock in the Insurance Industry.


You are aware that KBR is Halliburton no ?

Mine was that the government and defense contractors are mutually dependent enough that the contractors count on getting what they want--ie literally getting away with murder.

That's the nonsense.
If they want to make a law to deal harshly with gross criminal sexual misconduct then do it. But this is a transparent payoff to a special interest group. I thought the Dems condemned that sort of thing . I guess not.

Like I already mentioned ;the courts have already overruled any arbitration agreement that was signed by Jones.

Here is a statement by Sen Corker

"This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims,"

And that's the point. It's not exclusively about rape . It's opening up all employee grieviances that are handled now by arbitration to civil court remedy ;and that is a Trial Lawyer Lobby dream. .

The Franken Amendment does not remedy her situation because it needed no remedy... she could sue away. It's a foundation of law that certain rights cannot be signed away in a contract.

[asking]

Halliburton divested itself of KBR. You didn't know?
KBR was too much of a liability on a variety of counts.