Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The two party system means nothing anymore. I don't fit the mold in any party. I tend to vote conservative for federal issues and liberal for social, like a 'true' republican. we are so far to the left on both parties now a days, i didn't see a difference between obama and mccain, so i didnt vote. I am however voting against Deeds for Governor in a few weeks.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Like I thought I said before, I would have voted yay. But there's nothing wrong with debating the role of gov't or playing devil's advocate. I don't personally find it acceptable to spend tax money on probably 80% of what it's being spent on. I will illustrate this.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

We don't need more stupid laws enacted as part of some political game (and that is ALL that is behind it). If those politicians were actually concerned about rape and not Haliburton there would be wide support, but they're not, and there isn't. And you are naive if you think that the amendment has anything to do with stopping rape. Ask Juanita Broderick if she thinks that allegations of rape are really important to them. Politicians suck.

MX_Eva

I'm with Scott. Socially I am very "liberal" but I vote very conservative on federal issues.

This is all very silly

Savington

iTrader: (31)

You're playing devil's advocate on the side of supporting companies that condone the coverup of rape.

For ****'s sake, the federal government removes highway funding from states that don't adhere to the 21 year old drinking age, but it's not the Senate's place to revoke funding from DOD contractors that hide rape charges

**** you jeff sessions

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Patriot Act and Iraq war. The GOP had 8 years to try the "everyone should be oppressed and broke as ****" idea, and look where it got us.

The Republican party is so back-asswards it makes me sick to my stomach. BRB, I have to go re-register as a Democrat. Even though I don't agree with half the **** they do, I don't agree with ALL the **** the GOP has been doing recently.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I voted for neither, but I hate seeing two Alabama senators voted this way. Shame on you Sessions and Shelby.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Missouri, I could go on. Nuke these states from orbit.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I don't see California on the list. Throw your state in and its a deal.

MX_Eva

The problem is that the party needs a re-form but everyone for some god damned reason thinks that the only reason the party exists is for people who want to resist being reformed and changing.

People like Scott and Myself, and several others I know don't have many options. I'm not a democrat, I don't really support dems values, and don't like federal policies of democrats. But I don't read the bible and don't believe gays should be incapable of being married and I'm pro-choice etc. etc. etc. I can name a lot of people like that, even my 50+ year old co-worker is registered republican and believes the same things. Heck she's even more liberal about things than I am, she watches fox news and still considers herself a republican and thinks that Obama is naive.

ScottFW

iTrader: (4)

Halliburton, KBR, and other contractors mentioned in the amendment's purpose statement are paper entities and as such do not have penises and therefore cannot commit rape, no matter how much the talking heads on CNBC try to convince you otherwise.

Let's assume for the sake of friendly argument that you and I both work for Halliburton and I **** you in the ***. Let's also assume that you didn't first ask me to, that you didn't enjoy it immensely, and now you claim it was rape. No arbitration clause between you and Halliburton would have any legal consequence as far as the "allegedly" criminal use of my mighty poz rod. I'd still go to jail. Private party contracts do not provide criminal immunity.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could spin that vote as just another example of Democrats catering to those whose version of the American Dream involves suing anyone and everyone they possibly can.

Here's the text of the amendment that passed:
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.

Since you don't get to pick which parts to vote for or against, I'd vote against that amendment too because of the "negligent hiring, supervision, or retention" part. That clause gets too far away from a gang rape and too close to a trial lawyer's wet dream that will result in far more frivolous matters than a gang rape ending up in court rather than arbitration where they belong. Remember that these are govt contractors so the resulting costs of doing business will be passed to the taxpayer. Which might not bother you if you are in favor of big government and high taxes.

If all of those allegations are true the victim would walk away from arbitration with more than enough money to be set for life. It's not like arbitration is a magic fantasy world where companies have no financial culpability. It is somewhat less likely than a jury trial to result in a $14M award for a spilled coffee, however. But if you don't like a company's arbitration policy, don't sign it. If that means not working for them, or quitting, tough noogies. Nobody is forcing you to work there.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

I feel that only intellegent people should be able to vote. Most intellegent people know how to save atleast some money, while people of a lower intellegence don't. If we could only institute some kind of fee or tax to be able to vote, I think that would solve a lot of problems dont you?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

whatever. i can be dumb if i want. thats the beauty.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

That's exactly what arbitration is. Arbiters are chosen based on their track record of ruling in favor of the companies they are hired by, and some arbiters rule in favor of the corporation 95% of the time. Arbitration was designed to allow two companies to settle disputes without costly legal battles, but powerhouses like KBR and Haliburtion (and dozens and dozens of other companies, universities, etc) use it today to deny their employees/students/etc the right to a legal complaint.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

Sadly, he does know what he is talking about. I have done too many case studies on corporate liabilities and seen how they find the outragious settlements they do. It is unreal. The jury gereneraly side with the plaintiff and view the large companies are souless. Really the whole vor dire process is a loss limitation and not picking people who will side with you. You are picking people who will hate the corporation less.

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Are you seriously suggesting that arbitration is more fair than the judicial system?

Savington

iTrader: (31)

Sorry, the population of my state isn't retarded enough to vote A PAIR of senators into office that are so dead-set in the ideals of party politics that they will LITERALLY vote to PROTECT COMPANIES THAT COVER UP RAPES in order to maintain their party lines.

There is no justification of this that is even remotely rational, folks. It's rape, end of story. If you seriously think that corporations like KBR that actively utilize arbitration to avoid confronting accusations like this deserve our tax dollars, you need to take a serious step back. This is not about protecting big business, or partisan politics: This is about basic human rights.

boileralum

iTrader: (8)

Looks like both of my senators (Bayh and Lugar from IN) voted in favor of the amendment. No need to write any letters here.

rharris19

iTrader: (41)

Far from it. I am saying that both have thier flaws and that both have their aspects that are unjustly biased to one side.

rmcelwee

iTrader: (1)

I normally don't get into political discussions on here but I got interested when I saw that Demint (who I generally agree with and believe is an upstanding fellow) voted against the amendment. I am looking for some quotes from those who opposed it but I haven't found much yet.

If it was a political thing (trying only to bust Halliburton's ***** or get the government involved in all hiring contracts for more Fed power) I would like to know. I somehow doubt that ANY Senator likes to see young girls get rapped without full recourse of the law. If one does, they need to hang.

Anyway, FWIW, here was what Sessions said:



Senator Sessions: (3:38 PM)



· Spoke against the Franken Amendment #2588 to H.R. 3326.



o SUMMARY "The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It's a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is a matter of sensitivity. Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate. Certainly without a lot of thought and care and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense. Senator Franken introduced the amendment because he apparently does not like the fact that there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today."