Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ) McConnel (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS) Now, the fellows on that list (at least the ones not currently involved in some sort of sex scandal) will probably lecture at length about family values and how the private sector is a wonderful thing and then they will vote Nay on a bill to make it possible for a woman who was gang-raped and held in a shipping container to sue anyone over that. The fine stalwarts of the constitution have their reasons, of course. And the reasons are green. No as in green technology to combat climate change -- fiddle dee dee to that. No, good old green cash, paid to them by the truckload from military contractors. And those payments are for services rendered, like voting to protect rapists who happen to work for the military contractor who is donating to your campaigns. Keep an eye on these guys. You never know what they'll try next.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I'll also be curious to see how politicians vote if a bill goes to the floor to revoke health insurance industry anti-trust status.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think bills like this SHOULD be brought to the floor. Force the hands of these people who are bound by 'special interests' - make them keep having to cast these career killing votes. And then let them stand in front of their constituents and have to explain to them why they voted the way they did. Honestly though, I don't think it would make much difference in the end. I'm all but convinced that republican voters are motivated more by their ignorance and fears of democrats than by anything their representatives do or don't do. One thing republicans hate is accountability, and I think this holds true for the rank and file voter along with the politicians themselves.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Honestly though, I don't think it would make much difference in the end.<< It won't mainly because we Americans are easily distracted by shiny things -- like UFO-shaped balloons that may or may not be carrying a small child. 30 senators vote in favor of protecting rapists -- we lose interest. Publicity seekers trying to get their own reality show, that, by God, we'll watch round the clock.
Originally Posted By DAR Correct me if I'm wrong but what my understanding is that Franken's amendment wouldn't protect any future employer from having a lawsuit against it if a sexual assault were to occur on its premises. But it would include an employer who had no knowledge of the assault occurring. It seems that what they voted against, not for rape.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Franken's amendment wouldn't protect any future employer from having a lawsuit against it if a sexual assault were to occur on its premises. << I'm not sure I understand - why would an amendment protect employers from lawsuits? The idea is to protect the rights of the employee - the "victim".
Originally Posted By DAR Sorry let me clarify. It allows the victim to sue his/her employer even if the employer had nothing to do with the assault.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Sorry let me clarify. It allows the victim to sue his/her employer even if the employer had nothing to do with the assault.<< WHAT???? So does just about every other amendment in the universe on every possible topic. What the hell is your point?
Originally Posted By DAR Well that's wrong. If an employer has nothing to do with such an assault why should they be sued?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Well that's wrong. If an employer has nothing to do with such an assault why should they be sued? >> If a company is egregiously responsible for the conditions that allow sexual assault of employees, why should they be exempt from being sued?
Originally Posted By mawnck Sporty ... don't fall for it. The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with what DAR is talking about.
Originally Posted By mawnck (IE it also allows robots to steal your underwear, terrorists to walk around freely in Hoboken, and Disney to put characters in IASW.)
Originally Posted By DAR If a company that created a culture that allowed it then yes file a lawsuit. But if there's a small section of employees that engage in such behavior without the knowledge of the employer how do hold you the employer accountable?
Originally Posted By DAR <<Sporty ... don't fall for it. The bill has nothing whatsoever to do with what DAR is talking about.>> I was asking a question, but I see you're still a prick.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If a company that created a culture that allowed it then yes file a lawsuit. But if there's a small section of employees that engage in such behavior without the knowledge of the employer how do hold you the employer accountable? >> Why be scared of lawsuits? If the employer is truly unaccountable, the truth should bear out. Our legal system should not impose barriers on people who have the least amount of power to get redress for wrongs against them. Corporations have a lot of legal power. They win far more lawsuits than they ever lose -- even when they are guilty of criminal acts.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Basically what the law states is that if I own a business and hire someone who eventually rapes a female employee, I am held liable to this, even if I had no idea the rape occured, and the female never reported anything in the past to me... You do realize there are alot of false rape claims out there, and just because a woman claims rape, doesn't mean it actually occurred. What could be considered consensual could be twisted to forced if the woman sees a few million dollar signs in her eyes... Case in point Bryan, Kobe..... Lacrosse Team, Duke....
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << You do realize there are alot of false rape claims out there >> So we deny the rights of legitimate rape victims in order to punish the ones that are not legitimate?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 << You do realize there are alot of false rape claims out there >> So we deny the rights of legitimate rape victims in order to punish the ones that are not legitimate?<< No, but we need to let the legal process progress, not jump to conclusions based on claims or allegations... I just think we are sliding down a slippery slope, ,it's bad enough that the owner of a bar who serves alcohol to someone can be sued if that person who drank killed someone, even if the owner did not serve the alcohol, but an employee did. If we held an employer accountable for every little thing that an employee does, the U.S. Government would have been shut down years ago based on all the illegal activities, the Senators, Congressmen, Soldiers, Marines etc, have commited over the years... I was in Iraq when the incident in question happened, and yes it was horrible and tragic, and in this case, the company did try to cover it up... and in this case, the company should be fried... But what if a company did not know that happened and did background checks on their employees... Now we are leaving corporations and small businesses open to hundreds of lawsuits based on crimes their employees committed...
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << No, but we need to let the legal process progress, not jump to conclusions based on claims or allegations... >> You realize that the law passed in Congress does exactly what you just describe instead of allowing a company to completely subvert the legal process and deny a rape victim all ability to pursue a legal outcome.
