Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << But are they supporting the actual rapist? And the answer to that is no. >> If the company is protecting the rapist by not allowing the victim to pursue any legal redress, then they are supporting the actual rapist.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, I wouldn't go that far. This issue deals with reparations I do believe. The victim could still sue the rapist but generally that person is penniless and in prison so what's the point.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ There have been no criminal actions taken against any of the perpetrators of the gang rape that prompted this bill.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Issues with jurisdiction over U.S. contractors in Iraq. Plus, there was a massive cover-up of evidence, including the rape kit that was provided to Ms. Jones.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Fine but it's not a vote for rape. These senators aren't protecting the rights of the actual rapist(which if I had my way wouldn't have any).<< I think that's a fair statement. They are protecting the interests of the corporations who seem more concerned about saving a buck than giving their employees safe working environments.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I am glad I can back.<< I bet you are. Your time at the GOP Argument Clinic seems to have paid off in the form of new, and unfortunately effective, underhanded diversionary techniques. Soon you'll be able to send everyone off on a tangent just by showing up in a topic, like utahjosh. Good job on you. But I'm kind of ashamed of everybody else.
Originally Posted By DAR Why all I pointed out is that the Senator's aren't supporting the actual rapist in this case. They're making sure businesses aren't subjected to a lawsuit due to a situation that business might not have been able to control. While a large corporation would be able to take a hit on such a case. A smaller business would be permanently damaged by it. While I certainly care the victim in any case like this. I also care if people lose their jobs that had no reason to.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***They're making sure businesses aren't subjected to a lawsuit due to a situation that business might not have been able to control.*** Trying to "make sure", perhaps. Or at least that's the excuse they might be using. In any case, it's irrelevant though since they lost.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>A smaller business would be permanently damaged by it.<< DAR, your defense of small businesses is admirable, but it's rooted in fantasy. Tell me the name of one small business that has a defense contract with the Pentagon that this amendment would affect? While Republicans (like these Senators) always defend their actions by citing small businesses - opposition to minimum wage increases, opposition to healthcare reform, etc., their motives are very clearly rooted in defending the top 1% that control 50% of the wealth. Do small business owners have lobbyists on Capitol Hill telling these Senators not to vote for this? Nope. You know who does? Halliburton. It's not about the small businesses. It's about the giant businesses that control the direction of our country.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***A smaller business would be permanently damaged by it.*** As ECDC pointed out earlier, there aren't many small businesses with federal war contracts. None that I know of, anyway (perhaps if Cheney had been the owner of a small business it'd be a different story). I wonder if you're actually familiar with the details of this situation, DAR. It was a question of whether or not the government should do business with such corporations, nothing more afaik.
Originally Posted By DAR But if the company had no idea or no control over something like this happening then why shouldn't they be able to do business with government. It has to be a case by case basis. And honestly the possibility of the government engaged in shady business practices, surely you jest.
Originally Posted By DAR <<It's not about the small businesses. It's about the giant businesses that control the direction of our country.>> But if you damage one big business(no matter if it's deserved or not) you will eventually hurt the small businesses.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But if the company had no idea or no control over something like this happening then why shouldn't they be able to do business with government. It has to be a case by case basis.<< If the company had no idea or no control, then we've got no problem. There's nothing here that says "Oh, one of your employees was raped? Well so much for your contract!"
Originally Posted By ecdc This notion that the noble business owners are being persecuted by the big bad government is completely backwards. Today businesses own the government, or at least a good portion of the representatives within it. We should be extremely grateful when someone finally has enough backbone to stand up to these people. Make no mistake. They do not care about you DAR, their employees, or their country. They care about the almighty dollar. Do you know where employees are listed on a company's balance sheet? Under "liabilities." Laying workers off is the fastest and cheapest way to save money, which is why businesses do it. A CEO of a major corporation once said that "Cash is more important than your mother." Gordon Gekko is alive and well. I can't fathom defending these people after what a great many of them have done to our country the past 30 years. This is not the American way. These businesses couldn't be more un-American if they tried. Offshoring jobs to save money, cutting benefits, keeping wages stagnant. That's where we are, yet this myth of them as brave mom and pops living the American dream lives on.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy The U.S. Constitution according to DAR: Government of business, for business, by business. Screw the people. All hail the almighty buck. Everyone else get out of the way.
Originally Posted By DAR Wrong. It's protect those who might who would need it, like a small business.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Make no mistake. They do not care about you DAR, their employees, or their country. They care about the almighty dollar.>> Some don't care about their country, but plenty of other businesses do. I'm fortunate enough to work for a company(Life Insurance) that does.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Wrong. It's protect those who might who would need it, like a small business.*** Wow, you are amazing at staying "on message". DAR SMALL BUSINESSES ARE NOT AT ISSUE HERE, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MATTER AT HAND. NO SMALL BUSINESSES COULD POSSIBLY BE EFFECTED BY THIS NO MATTER WHAT. Did that help?
