30 republicans vote against ban on mandatory arbitration

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pjdude1219, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    first off sorry about thread title. a honest truely descriptive title wouldn't fit and this while hyperbolic is kinda true.


    30 republicans voted against al frankens new bill to prevent the government from hiring contractors that have a clause in their contract that absolves the company of liability if an employee is raped by coworkers.


    now I will repeat my self for all those who just did a spit take

    30 republicans voted against al frankens new bill to prevent the government from hiring contractors that have a clause in their contract that absolves the company of liability if an employee is raped by coworkers.



    talk about family values. once again the republican party showing its self for the piece of shit it is these days.


    Note that 30 republicans is 75% of senate republicans. yes that's right the majority of senate republicans voted against a bill to prevent the government from hiring companies that refuse liabilty for failing to protect their employees from gang rape by coworkers.
     
  2. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,773
    Sounds wild ... now what are you talking about?

    Wow .... So ... what else is there?

    I mean, we both know how legislation works. It's like the old "Springfield/Pervert Bill" sometimes. And wasn't one of the critical rounds of the spotted owl fight in the late '80s a rider attached to some random bill?

    I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm sure this story is just as amusing or sickening in its broader detail. But let's start with the bill. What bill?

    And don't tell people to go Google it. First off, you know how damn annoying that is. And, to the other, take your opportunity to frame the discussion. You're only halfway there so far.
     
  3. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    the bill is S.AMDT.2588
    text here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111Yj9Zq5:e0:
     
  4. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,773
    Pro-business?

    Why thank you.

    And, you see?

    Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

    (Library of Congress)

    I mean, it's true. How could anybody oppose this? I mean, we need not go all the way to "rape is okay" rhetoric, even though that's the essential message of these "pro-business" votes. People might be offended at the thought that they might be pro-rape if they think a prerequisite for working at any given company that requires an employee to forfeit proper justice in the event of being raped is just the sort of liability protection a responsible company ought to consider.

    So go ahead and make the inevitable point—Jon Stewart rocks. We know. But in the meantime, let us take a moment to honor the following thirty great men (and they're all men) who took a stand for business:

    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)

    These aren't insignificant junior players. Of course, there aren't many insignificant junior players among Senate Republicans; there are only three freshmen among the lot of them—Johanns and Risch among the nays. But we can also look on the bright side, and say hey to those ten Republicans who haven't completely lost their minds:

    Bennett (R-UT), Collins (R-ME), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), LeMieux (R-FL), Lugar (R-IN), Murkowski (R-AK), Snowe (R-ME), Voinovich (R-OH)

    One amusing thing about this vote is that it completely screws around with those who think the GOP is simply stalling and trying to play safe for the 2010 midterm elections. I mean, this sort of opposition makes no sense that I can figure. Am I overestimating voters in their constituencies to think that they would maybe, just maybe, look at their daughters or nieces or sisters or whomever and think, "Now, wait a minute ...."

    If the Democrats play this one well, they could make this vote come back and hurt some Republicans next year. Republicans facing re-election campaigns in 2010, with nay votes bold:

    Shelby (AL), Murkowski (AK), McCain (AZ), LeMieux (FL-retiring), Isakson (GA), Crapo (ID), Grassley (IA), Brownback (KS-retiring), Bunning (KY-retiring), Vitter (LA), Bond (MO-retiring), Gregg (NH-retiring), Burr (NC), Voinovich (OH-retiring), Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), Thune (SD), Bennett (UT)

    I mean, come on ... someone has to have some fun with Vitter on this one. And McCain? Pro-business? Let us see, then, if the Democrats can figure out what they have.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Library of Congress. "Text of Amendments (Senate, October 1, 2009)". Thomas.LOC.gov. October 15, 2009. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111Yj9Zq5:e0:

    Leo, Alex. "Jon Stewart Takes On 30 Republicans Who Voted Against Franken Rape Amendment". Huffington Post. October 15, 2009. HuffingtonPost.com. October 15, 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html

    United States Senate. "S. Amdt. 2588 to HR 3326". U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress—1st Session. October 6, 2009. Senate.gov. October 15, 2009. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

    Wikipedia. "United States Senate elections, 2010". October 15, 2009. Wikipedia.com. October 15, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  5. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    fuck yeah i'm going to keep that list of republican senators and send that to the DNC and make damn sure they use it.
     
  6. madanthonywayne Mourning in America Moderator

    Messages:
    12,407
    I don't think this is quite as big a deal as you. It was clever of Franken to throw rape in there to create the opportunity for just this sort of claim, but the bill would cover a lot more than rape and it is probably those other issues that concerned the Senators who voted against it.
     
  7. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    yeah maybe it was the anti false imprissonment or the anti assualt and battery. How twisted are you to defend putting corporations ahead of the victims of crimes; Violent crimes no less.

    read the admendment its just a quick link away or hell you can read it in Tiassa post. What is there to object about.
     
  8. madanthonywayne Mourning in America Moderator

    Messages:
    12,407
    Again, the rape and violent crime part is a red herring. Separate that part out and it would probably sail thru with 100% approval. It's the title 7 and perhaps the sexual harassment bits that I think people object to.
     
  9. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    not given the actual statements given by republicans in debate over that. and why are those a problem. why is letting the things that the courts were designed to deal with be able to go to courts a bad thing. maybe because it would be a shoe in victory for corporations.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Super Moderator

    Messages:
    30,773
    How strange ....

    It would seem that the objection, then, is that the amendment aimed exactly at what it wished to address.
     
  11. John99 Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    downright ignorant if you think any entity can just declacre themselves .
     
  12. pjdude1219 troaty mouth best song ever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,810
    ??? when a company mandates arbitration they also tend to have a list of ones they will accept that are usually chosen for their pro corporate stances.
     
  13. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,606
    That is very true. There are also other little provisions that corporations like to throw in their binding arbitration agreements that make it more expensive. For example, changing the location to an area remote to the claimant. And as you point out arbitration is a business. They want to get repeat business and good way to do that is cozy up to a client that sends a lot of business your way.
     
  14. John99 Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    are you really that naive? no one person or entity can declare themselves immune from prosecution. what are you trollin and lying again?

    Look at the subject:

    "30 republicans vote rape is ok"

    Who is the moderator here?
     
  15. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,606
    Truth hurts does it? :) LOL

    Let us remember this legislation was brought about because of a real life incident.
     
  16. John99 Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    someone starting off with a lie is not telling the truth. maybe to you joe.
     
  17. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    This is nothing more than the Republicans sticking up for their buddies in the contracting business. It's disgusting and should be viewed as such. Apparently, if you go to work for Haliburton et al, your forfeit your right to be protected by certain laws. In a word, unbelievable.
     
  18. John99 Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    making stuff up?

    if you want to editorialize go start a blog.
     
  19. John99 Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  20. joepistole Ordo Ad Chao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,606

Share This Page