Rep Vote Yes On Rape, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times
Topic started on 18-10-2009 @ 02:56 PM by blackpheonix
www.senate.gov...

www.alternet.org...

There are the links apparently its bad for ACORN to sell houses to Prostitutes but some how its of for KBR to GANGRAPE a 19yo girl then lock her up in a crate until she was found. WAY TO GO REPs that another one for you. The people who voted aghenst this need to be kicked out of office b/c they are not doing their jobs. Protecting the AMERICAN PEOPLE and delegating the PROPER USE OF TAX PAYER MONEY. I want to here what some REP have to say about this and keep the thread clean no oh obama did this or GW did this keep it on topic.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/10/2009 by Mirthful Me]


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 03:28 PM by Violater1
Your erroneous calculation and omission of the fact that there are almost 60 democrats that voted for this as well, discredit your thread.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---68
Akaka (D-HI)Baucus (D-MT)Bayh (D-IN)Begich (D-AK)Bennet (D-CO)Bennett (R-UT)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Burris (D-IL)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Carper (D-DE)Casey (D-PA)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Dodd (D-CT)Dorgan (D-ND)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Feinstein (D-CA)Franken (D-MN)Gillibrand (D-NY) Grassley (R-IA)Hagan (D-NC)Harkin (D-IA)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inouye (D-HI)Johnson (D-SD)Kaufman (D-DE)Kerry (D-MA)Kirk (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Kohl (D-WI)Landrieu (D-LA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)LeMieux (R-FL)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lugar (R-IN)McCaskill (D-MO)Menendez (D-NJ)Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD)Murkowski (R-AK)Murray (D-WA)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Rockefeller (D-WV)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Shaheen (D-NH)Snowe (R-ME)Stabenow (D-MI)Tester (D-MT)Udall (D-CO)Udall (D-NM)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (D-VA)Webb (D-VA)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---30
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)
Not Voting - 2
Byrd (D-WV) Specter (D-PA)
Moderator, please remove this erroneous and inflammatory thread. It is unbecoming of ATS.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 03:34 PM by clay2 baraka
In the debate, Senator Sessions maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the Constitution.

To which, Senator Franken fired back quoting the Constitution. "Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors -- what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it."

God I love it when Senator Franken quotes the Constitution. Not every Republican was so clueless. Ten voted for the Franken amendment including the GOP's female contingent of Senators (Snowe, Collins, Hutchinson and Murkowski).

Republican Sen. George LeMieux of Florida echoed some of Murkowski's sentiments.

"I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court," LeMieux said. "So, that is why I voted for it."

Source: AlterNet link above

The thread was inflammatory in tone (I see it all the time on the conservative side, by the way). .

The thread was not however, inaccurate.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by clay2 baraka]



reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 05:17 PM by whatukno
reply to post by Violater1



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.


www.senate.gov...

So basically it boils down like this...

The people below that voted against this bill decided that our tax payer money should go to companies that force their employees to sign mandatory arbitration clauses. This means that when the employee is gang raped and stuffed in a shipping container, they have no choice but to go through arbitration to reach a settlement with the company instead of suing the company and bringing criminal charges against the company employees.

But the following Republicans feel that employees should have to go through arbitration paid for by tax payers when they are gang raped and thrown into a shipping container. The following Republicans it can be said are pro rape.


NAYs ---30

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)

[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 06:56 PM by whatukno
reply to post by rnaa



www.abovetopsecret.com...

I talked about this same topic the other day.

Hey, did you guys get the idea for this thread from the daily show too?

Sad when a satirical news broadcast tells the truth better than the MSM


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 07:40 PM by Maxmars
reply to post by whatukno



The following Republicans it can be said are pro rape.


I'm afraid that would be a nonsensical claim. And a bit over-the-top.

It's akin to saying supporters of the death penalty are pro-murder.

I happen to agree with Franken on this... but honestly ... those opposing are 'pro-rape'?

You've been wrangling partisan zealots too long ... you're starting to sound like the very people you relish putting in their place.

This is about crass exploitation-ism in corporate/government relationships, and whom some moronic representatives would rather protect (namely, big business) than 'human resources' or as we normal folks refer to them, 'people'.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 07:54 PM by whatukno
reply to post by Maxmars



You've been wrangling partisan zealots too long ... you're starting to sound like the very people you relish putting in their place.


You might be right,

Perhaps they aren't pro rape. (But watch next election cycle when opponents to the above named people use this vote against them in a similar way.)

However, the idea that anyone would vote against this bill is beyond insane. It's fiscally conservative, it doesn't legislate what company policy is. All it is saying is that federal funds won't be given to companies that have this practice. It's well within the governments right to refuse funds to companies who have practices they do not agree with.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 08:20 PM by whatukno
reply to post by Sundancer



Whoah, hold up, you got it backwards.

The government is doing something right for a change, they are trying to prevent people from having to sign these waivers. If the company says you have to sign the form, they don't get money from the government.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 10:16 PM by rnaa
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to
post by rnaa



www.abovetopsecret.com...

I talked about this same topic the other day.

Hey, did you guys get the idea for this thread from the daily show too?

Sad when a satirical news broadcast tells the truth better than the MSM


I got the gist of the last paragraph in my post from the Daily Show, yes. It is in fact a true statement.

I don't know where the OP got the idea for the thread.


reply posted on 18-10-2009 @ 11:15 PM by whatukno
reply to post by Sundancer



All it's saying is that if a company wants to force their employees to sign such an agreement, they won't get any federal money.

The company can still make you sign the statement, they just don't get any federal money if they do that to employees. If they want money from the government they they would have to drop that policy.

So 30 republicans decided to vote against it saying it was ok for our tax money to pay for private companies to force employees to sign such a contract.

[edit on 10/18/2009 by whatukno]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Senator Paul is being detained at the Nashville Airport by the TSA
  Posted 18 days ago with 89 member flags
Bruins goalie Tim Thomas takes stand against U.S Government
  Posted 18 days ago with 88 member flags
This is what happens when Ford announces they are hiring
  Posted 19 days ago with 77 member flags
Romney: "I\'m Not Concerned About the Very Poor"
  Posted 9 days ago with 73 member flags
The Girl Killed by Obama: She "never saw it coming"
  Posted 3 days ago with 62 member flags
Ron Paul In Nevada - The Caucus Is Rigged!! - w/VIDEO
  Posted 5 days ago with 60 member flags