Jon Stewart Lambastes 30 Republican Senators Who Voted to Sanction Rape

[Ace Bandage]

I'm not even going to bother getting into an argument over this. Nobody is now or will ever try to sanction or formally approve of rape in the work place. That is not what the bill is about, and that's not what the Senators are opposing. Your thread title has completely misconstrued their rationale for dissenting against this legislation.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Example: For at least 6 out of 8 years during bushes presidency, the democrat politicians voted against almost everything that came from the republican side.
Clogged the system based on pure partisanship.

Obama puts forth the hugest spending bill ever and most dems vote yes while admittingly not even reading it!

For the first 6 years of Bush the republicans controlled both houses.He got to have just about anything he wanted passed.In fact a lot(most) of the democrates went along with his post 9/11 stuff like the patriot act etc.

Thats far different then now where the republicans almost to a person oppose everything the democrates have proposed.

And lets get over these sound bites like like "they don't even read the bills".None of the elected officals have time to sit and read cover to cover all the legislation brought forward.Thats what you have staff for (and they all do on both sides).You have staff that works on specific areas and they read the bills fully then brief you on what you need to know about the bills.

Republicans were a rubber stamp for Bush in those 6 years,many privately had reservations about Bush's policys (Iraq for one) but went along anyway and took a bath in 2006 and again in 2008 elections for it.

Right now on the health care debate there is a lot of infighting among dems over what should be done.Some want the public option some don't etc.


But there is no debate about it among republicans(except for maybe Snowe of maine) they are against anything any dem proposes.So partisanship is a two way street and we see it in spades right now.Thats their right of course,time will tell whether the public thinks they were standing up for them or just being obstructionist.

 

[jasonk282]

I'm not even going to bother getting into an argument over this. Nobody is now or will ever try to sanction or formally approve of rape in the work place. That is not what the bill is about, and that's not what the Senators are opposing. Your thread title has completely misconstrued their rationale for dissenting against this legislation.

^truth and what he said.

 

[Facial_King]

Here's the text of the amendment itself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3326eas.txt.pdf

and here are Franken's comments supporting it:
http://franken.senate.gov/press/?pa...se_Contractor_Mandatory_Arbitration_Amendment

 

[blackbull1970]

Interesting..........

 

[Namreg]

They don't want women who are raped by employees of defence contractors to be able to sue them in a public court. Instead they want closed hearings where there's no chance of justice. What they are effectively saying is that the (bribe) money they're recieving is much more important than justice being served. You, the American people have the duty to make sure they're kicked out of Congress. These are not the kind of people that should hold any position of power.

everything you said is true, but the american people don't give a shit about what their government does. vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, no investigation (by any police force) into 9/11, corruption, cronyism, etc etc... and the american people just bend over and say "thank you."

same as most countries, i guess.

 

[Spleen]

wow, one of the most fucked up things I've ever heard. And I'm hard to shock.

 

[HELLRAISER]

Here's the list of 30 republicans (including John McCain) who voted against the bill:

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)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Go to hell, guys. And rot there :2 cents:

I pity the fools.

shame on every single one of them and they should all be tarred and feathered!

 

[grassninja]

In my state we have one Republican and one Democrat senators, and they both voted in favor of passing this bill and I'm glad it passed. I'm not particularly fond of this company and I think actions should be taken against them.

I think that the 30 senators should have voted in favor of passing the bill, but to say that they support rape, or that the women were not able to sue or get compensation is spreading misinformation which is also known as lying if you know it not to be true, and you spread this information with being ignorant of the facts, that makes you either look uninformed or willing to believe anything one side pits against the other. Just by reading the senate's summary of the bill, it tells you that. Granted you have to know what arbitration is, and if you don't, you need to look it up, because with arbitration you can still sue. Arbitration frees up the court system and is actually faster than going to court.

The real people that should be ashamed and hung out dry, and probably even sent to jail or executed, are the men that participated in the rape, which I'm very curious to know what happened to them.

Anytime I read something, especially if it's Democrat against Republican, or Republican against Democrat, chances are pretty high it's probably false information, which one of the reason why our political system is so dicked up right now.

I think the actions of the Democrat and the Republicans are causing a need to end the two party system, and either have no parties or have many parties running, because both are doing a pretty piss job.

 

[JacknCoke]

Anyone have a copy of the actual bill? I want to see where it says rape or anti-rape. I don't believe any rightful human being would vote "for rape". But if they did shame on them!

 

[grassninja]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:

Here's the summary of the bill:

S.AMDT.2588
Amends: H.R.3326
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (submitted 10/1/2009) (proposed 10/1/2009)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S10069-10070

STATUS:

10/1/2009:
Amendment SA 2588 proposed by Senator Franken. (consideration: CR S10027-10028; text: CR S10027)
10/6/2009:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S10143, S10146-10148, S10149-10150)
10/6/2009:
Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 30. Record Vote Number: 308.

The link of above is for the Federal Registry, where all of the house and senate bills are documented.

 

[Facial_King]

Here's a good article about Vitter getting confronted about it.

And for those who know Vitter's scummy history, check comment #2 after the story - priceless!!

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/02/vitter-rape-franken/

 

[JacknCoke]

The link of above is for the Federal Registry, where all of the house and senate bills are documented.

Thank you, any chance I can read read it without being a lawyer? haha I don't have time to go through it at the moment.

 

[jasonk282]

Huh I dont see the word rape at all

 

[grassninja]

Thank you, any chance I can read read it without being a lawyer? haha I don't have time to go through it at the moment.

I think so. I think where the real confusion is with the term arbitration, which is an out of court settlement system overseen by an arbitrator, which is usually a retired judge, magistrate or experienced attorney. The problem or hassle with arbitration is that it must be done outside of court, and if arbitration breaks down, you must then go to court. If the arbitrator grants an amount that you don't like, it is difficult to have it over turned. With that being said, to say that they can't sue or that they can't get damages is false, because they can.

The one problem with any lawsuit that the lawyers involved have to prove that the company was negligent in the matter. Just being the employer doesn't make them responsible for criminal actions, unless a reasonable person believes that they didn't take reasonable steps to prevent the actions. Some will gladly settle to not look bad in the public eyes, but this company is not looked upon very favorably anyway by most people.

In most cases the lawyers may try and show that the company didn't do a very job of doing background checks, etc. If this was pressed in a court case, if the lawyers can't prove the company was negligent, then they loose, and they have to try and go after just the men that were involved with the rape, and if they have no money, then you're kind of stuck.

I think the media should do a better job of finding more information about the criminal actions of these men.

 

[JacknCoke]

I think so. I think where the real confusion is with the term arbitration, which is an out of court settlement system overseen by an arbitrator, which is usually a retired judge, magistrate or experienced attorney. The problem or hassle with arbitration is that it must be done outside of court, and if arbitration breaks down, you must then go to court. If the arbitrator grants an amount that you don't like, it is difficult to have it over turned. With that being said, to say that they can't sue or that they can't get damages is false, because they can.

The one problem with any lawsuit that the lawyers involved have to prove that the company was negligent in the matter. Just being the employer doesn't make them responsible for criminal actions, unless a reasonable person believes that they didn't take reasonable steps to prevent the actions. Some will gladly settle to not look bad in the public eyes, but this company is not upon very favorably anyway by most people.

In most cases the lawyers may try and show that the company didn't do a very job of doing background checks, etc. If this was pressed in a court case, if the lawyers can't prove the company was negligent, then they loose, and they have to try and go after just the men that were involved with the rape, and if they have no money, then you're kind of stuck.

I think the media should do a better job of finding more information about the criminal actions of these men.

What does an arbitrator have to do with rape? All they usually settle is an amount of money owed based on sub-par work? Or so I thought (not much on law's and the court system, besides I think it needs to be revamped A LOT)

 

[grassninja]

What does an arbitrator have to do with rape? All they usually settle is an amount of money owed based on sub-par work? Or so I thought (not much on law's and the court system, besides I think it needs to be revamped A LOT)

It would be to decide their claim for damages, such as medical care they received, money for loss of work, pain and suffering, mental anguish and counseling costs related to it.

The bill just makes it law that the federal government can not write the check for service to the affiliated companies if they require their employees/independent contractors to go through arbitration, instead of going directly court, if they employee believes they have a legal claim against the company. So if these companies want to get paid by the government, then they need to let the employees that have a legal claim against them, go directly to court instead of it going to arbitration.

 

[JacknCoke]

It would be to decide their claim for damages, such as medical care they received, money for loss of work, pain and suffering, mental anguish and counseling costs related to it.

The bill just makes it law that the federal government can not write the check for service to the affiliated companies if they require their employees/independent contractors to go through arbitration, instead of going directly court, if they employee believes they have a legal claim against the company. So if these companies want to get paid by the government, then they need to let the employees that have a legal claim against them, go directly to court instead of it going to arbitration.

I see thanks for the break down I am going to read the bill for myself soon here and see if I can make sense of it.


Just picked up on this looking at the voting history
Specter (D-PA), Not Voting

Why did he choose not to vote? Any Ideas?

 

[Jagger69]

Another misleading and politically divisive thread.....let's just keep fighting amongst ourselves while the politicians (right or left....doesn't matter) ride off with the power and the money.

 

[JacknCoke]

Another misleading and politically divisive thread.....let's just keep fighting amongst ourselves while the politicians (right or left....doesn't matter) ride off with the power and the money.

That's what I was thinking. Does John Stewart know anything about politics or does he just recite everything written down for him on the teleprompter?

I haven't found that bill mention Rape or anti-rape a single time. Pick different battles next time. Do your research before you post bull shit topics especially if them come from John Stewart or Colbert. Their shows are comedy therefore not full of facts or actual stories. They twist they truth which is why they are funny.:2 cents: