Good old Republicans

2009-10-20 16:24:45

#1

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5989|College Park, MD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

A few years ago, a female employee of KBR (a government-contracted company that does work similar to Halliburton's) was raped by fellow employees. She was then locked in a shipping crate for a few days until a guard let her call the US Embassy and get out. The rape kit done by KBR mysteriously disappeared and while eventually it was recovered, most of the notes that came with it were gone.

KBR employees got away with the rape because of a section in the employee contract with KBR that essentially makes you forfeit your ability to sue for something like rape. This case even went to the DOJ and nothing could be done about it.

So Senator Al Franken put an amendment into the Defense Appropriations Bill that would sever all current contracts with companies that have these sorts of clauses in their contracts, as well as prevent new federal contracts being made with companies like that. It passed thankfully, but 30 Republicans (including the "maverick" McCain) voted against it (the amendment specifically):

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Can someone give me any logical explanation as to why you would vote against something that would prevent companies from getting away with rape?

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-10-20 16:25:04)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-10-20 16:49:47

#2

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,982|6919|949

Because those companies either donate lots of money to your campaign, are historically stalwart supporters of Republicans or offer a nice cushy lobby/analyst/political liaison job to former politicos. I'm sure a few Dems gave their contributors from those Defense contractors a wink-wink pat-on-the back guarantee that they (the Dems) are still batting for the right team.

2009-10-20 16:54:19

#3

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|7008|Sydney, Australia

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because those companies either donate lots of money to your campaign, are historically stalwart supporters of Republicans or offer a nice cushy lobby/analyst/political liaison job to former politicos. I'm sure a few Dems gave their contributors from those Defense contractors a wink-wink pat-on-the back guarantee that they (the Dems) are still batting for the right team.

Ah, my problems with american politics

2009-10-20 17:04:28

#4

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

Business owns large parts of the US govt, on both sides.

Fuck Israel

2009-10-20 17:14:47

#5

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5986

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because those companies either donate lots of money to your campaign, are historically stalwart supporters of Republicans or offer a nice cushy lobby/analyst/political liaison job to former politicos. I'm sure a few Dems gave their contributors from those Defense contractors a wink-wink pat-on-the back guarantee that they (the Dems) are still batting for the right team.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Business owns large parts of the US govt, on both sides.

2009-10-20 17:17:23

#6

destruktion_6143: Was ist Loos?; +154|6913|Canada

Although this guy is disgusting for voting against it, he has a kick ass name: Saxby Chambliss

2009-10-20 17:18:58

#7

Wreckognize: Member; +294|6772

mcminty wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because those companies either donate lots of money to your campaign, are historically stalwart supporters of Republicans or offer a nice cushy lobby/analyst/political liaison job to former politicos. I'm sure a few Dems gave their contributors from those Defense contractors a wink-wink pat-on-the back guarantee that they (the Dems) are still batting for the right team.
Ah, my problems with american politics

This is the product of capitalism.

2009-10-20 17:29:38

#8

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7001|US

How many contractors have these clauses, and what would that do to current US efforts?
Anyone considered that?

2009-10-20 17:30:47

#9

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5989|College Park, MD

RAIMIUS wrote:
How many contractors have these clauses, and what would that do to current US efforts?
Anyone considered that?

Would it really kill them to take the clauses out of their contracts and tell their employees not to rape people?

2009-10-20 18:02:39

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5645|London, England

Wreckognize wrote:
mcminty wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Because those companies either donate lots of money to your campaign, are historically stalwart supporters of Republicans or offer a nice cushy lobby/analyst/political liaison job to former politicos. I'm sure a few Dems gave their contributors from those Defense contractors a wink-wink pat-on-the back guarantee that they (the Dems) are still batting for the right team.
Ah, my problems with american politics
This is the product of capitalism.

Dumbest thing I've seen written on this board yet. Grats.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-10-20 19:42:02

#11

13rin: Member; +977|6766

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

A few years ago, a female employee of KBR (a government-contracted company that does work similar to Halliburton's) was raped by fellow employees. She was then locked in a shipping crate for a few days until a guard let her call the US Embassy and get out. The rape kit done by KBR mysteriously disappeared and while eventually it was recovered, most of the notes that came with it were gone.

KBR employees got away with the rape because of a section in the employee contract with KBR that essentially makes you forfeit your ability to sue for something like rape. This case even went to the DOJ and nothing could be done about it.

So Senator Al Franken put an amendment into the Defense Appropriations Bill that would sever all current contracts with companies that have these sorts of clauses in their contracts, as well as prevent new federal contracts being made with companies like that. It passed thankfully, but 30 Republicans (including the "maverick" McCain) voted against it (the amendment specifically):

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Can someone give me any logical explanation as to why you would vote against something that would prevent companies from getting away with rape?

Sure I'll give you a logical explanation as to why I would vote against it -as soon as you post the entire bill, so I can read it.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-10-20 20:04:38

#12

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6281|Truthistan

Scumbags

Just goes to show that if the choice is between protecting the public/national interest and protecting the interests of their friends... needless to say what's a little rape here and there where money is concerned.

I wonder if any of these guys had the balls to stand on the floor and make a speech about how the amendment would be bad.

What Congress should do is remove any obstacles to the operation of Iraqi law in this case and let her claim Sharia law on these F'ers asses.

2009-10-20 20:13:52

#13

nickb64: formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]; +77|5898|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Diesel_dyk wrote:
What Congress should do is remove any obstacles to the operation of Iraqi law in this case and let her claim Sharia law on these F'ers asses.

Umm...

Wouldn't Sharia Law favor the men lol???

Pretty sure every case of rape I've ever heard of that went under Islamic law in the Mid East ended up with the woman getting punished...

2009-10-20 20:22:59

#14

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6281|Truthistan

nickb64 wrote:
Diesel_dyk wrote:
What Congress should do is remove any obstacles to the operation of Iraqi law in this case and let her claim Sharia law on these F'ers asses.
Umm...

Wouldn't Sharia Law favor the men lol???

Pretty sure every case of rape I've ever heard of that went under Islamic law in the Mid East ended up with the woman getting punished...

There was that case a while back where a woman who got acid in the face and lost her eye sight asked for Sharia law and the court ordered the guy to be blinded. I'm no expert on Sharia law but it would serve the rapists right if their asses were left back in an Iraqi prison after everyone left.

2009-10-20 20:28:23

#15

Miggle: FUCK UBISOFT; +1,411|7029|FUCK UBISOFT

I'm not sure why it's wrong to prevent her from suing her employer for rape committed by other employees... AFAIK A rape case should be handled by the criminal court system, not the civil court system.

I find it funny that a bill that only promoted more wrongful lawsuits is being used as a "Republicans support rape" argument. This is some of the most blatant propaganda I've ever seen. Good one, chiefs.

2009-10-20 20:28:46

#16

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7055

Those clauses don't stop local laws being enforced. But, with little evidence I can't see much being done.

2009-10-20 22:39:54

#17

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6888|132 and Bush

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

A few years ago, a female employee of KBR (a government-contracted company that does work similar to Halliburton's) was raped by fellow employees. She was then locked in a shipping crate for a few days until a guard let her call the US Embassy and get out. The rape kit done by KBR mysteriously disappeared and while eventually it was recovered, most of the notes that came with it were gone.

KBR employees got away with the rape because of a section in the employee contract with KBR that essentially makes you forfeit your ability to sue for something like rape. This case even went to the DOJ and nothing could be done about it.

So Senator Al Franken put an amendment into the Defense Appropriations Bill that would sever all current contracts with companies that have these sorts of clauses in their contracts, as well as prevent new federal contracts being made with companies like that. It passed thankfully, but 30 Republicans (including the "maverick" McCain) voted against it (the amendment specifically):

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Can someone give me any logical explanation as to why you would vote against something that would prevent companies from getting away with rape?
Sure I'll give you a logical explanation as to why I would vote against it -as soon as you post the entire bill, so I can read it.

Yea, usually it's what they attach on it. It's rather typical for politicians to setup the opposition this way. SEE THEY LIKE RAPE ..see! see!

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-10-20 23:29:39

#18

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5989|College Park, MD

Read more closely guys, they voted against the specific amendment.

@Miggle she wasn't even allowed to sue in criminal court since it happened overseas

2009-10-21 05:15:31

#19

13rin: Member; +977|6766

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Read more closely guys, they voted against the specific amendment.

@Miggle she wasn't even allowed to sue in criminal court since it happened overseas

So what? I'm sure there was a reason for it.

Anyhoo - Pot, meet kettle. Accountability? Responsibility? Screw that. Let's act like four year olds!

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2009-10-21 07:08:41

#20

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7001|US

The US DOJ doesn't have jurisdiction in IRAQ, if I am not mistaken...

Why should one sue a company when an employee rapes someone...? Do you normally sue Toyota when their employee hits you?

2009-10-21 08:54:49

#21

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7030|Reality

How about suing them for forceable confinement? Your employer locks you in a shipping container because you were raped WTF! If she didn't get a cell phone, she would have been 'killed by .... in the line of duty.

Absolutely disgusting!

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2009-10-21 09:28:28

#22

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7023|Salt Lake City

RAIMIUS wrote:
The US DOJ doesn't have jurisdiction in IRAQ, if I am not mistaken...

Why should one sue a company when an employee rapes someone...? Do you normally sue Toyota when their employee hits you?

Actually, an employer can be held responsible for the actions of an employee if a crime was committed while the employee was acting as an agent for the company.

2009-10-21 10:16:57

#23

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6281|Truthistan

Stubbee wrote:
How about suing them for forceable confinement? Your employer locks you in a shipping container because you were raped WTF! If she didn't get a cell phone, she would have been 'killed by .... in the line of duty.

Absolutely disgusting!

Double that because the company made her rape kit disappear and they tampered with evidence... so its also a conapiracy charge.

The fact that this happened under Bush's watch and nothing was done even though these could have been prosecutede says a lot. The fact that some GOP members voted against the amendment also shows us which members of congress need to be kicked out.... Why am I not surprised to see that POS John Cornyn amongst these low lifes, and he's supposed to be some sort of moral crusader doing crap like marching down to an Indian casino with a bunch of baptist ministers.... and here he is supporting rape whatta joke.

EDIT: and I'll add that they all know that this amendment is about that rape and the cover up afterward, just like members of congress know when they are voting on stuff like amber alerts or other sex offender legislation that arise after some horrendous case, just like this one. IMO that's means that these guys are supporting the outcomes like this rape by wanting to bar legislative attempts to deter these acts and to bring these guys to justice. So yah, they support rape.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-10-21 10:24:36)

2009-10-21 11:12:56

#24

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6816|Global Command

Isn't it only liberals who are saying roman polanski should get away with drugging and arresting a teenager?

Maybe it's only rape rape when a ...ah nevermind. They all can kiss my ass.

2009-10-21 11:15:10

#25

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6958|UK

and i thought you had left that omg its the libruls thinking behind you. sigh.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

BF2S Forums Good old Republicans

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

mcminty wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

mcminty wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

nickb64 wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Stubbee wrote:

Board footer