Originally Posted By Dabob2 Allowing companies to have something like this as a condition of employment (which is what the act disallows) makes rape more likely, at the very least.
Originally Posted By DAR Again they're not voting on the basis that rape is acceptable or should no longer considered a major criminal offense
Originally Posted By gadzuux You don't think so? As (I think) you're aware, this is based on a specific instance in which a woman WAS violently assaulted, raped and placed inside of a shipping container for 24 hours so that evidence of the crime could be destroyed. Because of the contract she was required to sign with her employer, she was left with no legal recourse. The senators knew all of this, and yet voted to block the remedy. They did this knowing that the bill would pass anyway, even without their votes. So why did they vote against their own common sense? The likeliest answer is that they've been handsomely rewarded by the very defense contractor who would benefit by defeating the bill. In other words, they've been all too easily corrupted by money and power. They're so far into the pockets of these contractors they can't even see daylight. And do you suppose it's just a coincidence that each and every one of these senators is republican? All of this obfuscation about mom & pop businesses you bring up misses the main point by miles - this is targeted specifically to defense contractors that have contracts with the federal government. And the GOP is more concerned about protecting these 'special interests' than they are looking out for the best interests of the people they're elected to serve. And who's surprised at that?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<And the GOP is more concerned about protecting these 'special interests' than they are looking out for the best interests of the people they're elected to serve.>> Exactly. The people who elected them aren't going to give these senators their cushy high paying lobbyist jobs after they leave office. But their corporate masters, like KBR, will do precisely that. We no longer have a "government of the people" insomuch as a "government of the highest bidder."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Again they're not voting on the basis that rape is acceptable or should no longer considered a major criminal offense> You've lowered the bar so far, it's subterranean now. No, they didn't vote to legalize rape, but no one ever claimed that. It's still voting in favor of a policy that would make rape more likely, and make its prosecution impossible in certain circumstances.
Originally Posted By DAR <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-109071-P-3.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...-P-3.asp</a> Read the title.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Then why don't you go post in that thread, if that's your beef, and quit fouling up mine. Thanks. This thread never claimed they voted to make rape legal -- just impossible to prosecute without the Franken amendment in these particular circumstances. As it stands now, with signing away certain rights as a requirement for employment, while not making rape exactly legal, makes it rather unpunishable. Si?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What it does is outlaw the practice of requiring, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, the agreement that EVEN IF the company contributes to the rape and EVEN IF the company actively covers it up, the victim cannot sue. That's it, and that's all.*** The sad part is a hard core right winger would be against this, as well as any other conditions of employment a company feels like demanding.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***What it does is outlaw the practice of requiring, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, the agreement that EVEN IF the company contributes to the rape and EVEN IF the company actively covers it up, the victim cannot sue. That's it, and that's all.*** The sad part is a hard core right winger would be against this, as well as any other conditions of employment a company feels like demanding.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes and thank you for not being an ass while explaining it.<< <<<------Apologizes for his assiness in post 174. Typing on my phone and didn't mean to sound so short or rude.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 There were editorials in extremely conservative newspapers in Louisiana, Georgia, Kansas, Missouri, and Florida (newspapers that generally love these senators) that were completely decimating the senators that voted against the amendment. There are a lot of people, including right wing republicans, that are pretty disgusted with them right now.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/02/vitter-confronted-by-rape_n_342051.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...051.html</a> This issue isn't going away. At least one Senator - David Vitter - has been vilified in the local press and was actually confronted by a rape victim at a town hall meeting. Here's hoping every single one of these guys is reminded on a daily basis of how they put politics before rape victims.
Originally Posted By mele <--likes the word "assiness" and is going to work it into a conversation today. Is also going to work in the phrase my nephew used on Halloween: "sucker-treaters". It's going to be an interesting day.
