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.

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]

The implication that blackphoenix presents is that ALL republicans voted YES.
The thread is factually in error.

Originally posted by Violater1
The implication that blackphoenix presents is that ALL republicans voted YES.
The thread is factually in error.

blackphoenix clear implication is that the NO vote on the bill is a YES vote for rape.

blackphoenix is correct; it is you who are in error.

A YES vote would require the Government to not contract with companies that make it a requirement of employment that the candidate agree to being raped.

Companies like KBR whose employees gang raped a woman in Iraq and locked her in a shipping container for 24 hours. KBR employees in Iraq are immune from criminal law in Iraq and the USA. KBR employees are barred by their employment contract from suing the company or its employees.

All NO votes were Republican, endorsing the view that it is OK for taxpayer money to reward Contractors who allow company employees to rape, kidnap, torture, and imprison their colleagues without fear of punishment in any way.

And furthermore they are the same Republican votes that endorsed the idea that taxpayers money should not reward Contractors who allow company employees to jokingly advise fake hookers how to set up fake businesses even though the employees are disciplined and dismissed.

its time to clean house on both sides, kick em all out and start over.

I think it's wrong for any company to make you sign that you will never sue them or take them to court. If you don't sign, you don't get the job.
This is giving these big corporations even more power over the American people. Soon they will all start making all Americans sign these agreements. Before you know it, for example, our sons and daughters won't be allowed to sue companies such as McDonalds if their child was badly burned by another employee even if it's on purpose.

Congress isn't working for us it's working against us. They're taken our rights as individuals and now they'll take our rights as employee's. When they've run out all the small business's so only the corporations can afford to operate, you'll have no choice but to sign away your rights or you won't have work.

With this vote these people have opened another door to taking away your freedom. It was done on purpose and they should be removed from office, if it wasn't on purpose then they should be removed because they're to stupid to look out for the best interests of the people they're supposed to be protecting.

S&F

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Sundancer]

Originally posted by Sundancer
I think it's wrong for any company to make you sign that you will never sue them or take them to court. If you don't sign, you don't get the job.
This is giving these big corporations even more power over the American people. Soon they will all start making all Americans sign these agreements. Before you know it, for example, our sons and daughters won't be allowed to sue companies such as McDonalds if their child was badly burned by another employee even if it's on purpose.

Congress isn't working for us it's working against us. They're taken our rights as individuals and now they'll take our rights as employee's. When they've run out all the small business's so only the corporations can afford to operate, you'll have no choice but to sign away your rights or you won't have work.

With this vote these people have opened another door to taking away your freedom. It was done on purpose and they should be removed from office, if it wasn't on purpose then they should be removed because they're to stupid to look out for the best interests of the people they're supposed to be protecting.

S&F

[edit on 18-10-2009 by Sundancer]

Sundancer, the bill actually passed in the Senate. Its just that there were 30 NO votes, which is 30 NO votes too many. And every single one from Republicans.

I'm no attorney. I seem to be confused. If the bill passes do they have the right to make you sign the statement?

This post was meant to show that people can vote against basic human rights and that we do have some hope bc the bill did pass. It also was meant to show the contrast what if Dems voted no on this and it was reversed. People would be shouting all kinds of things. However I do have to say it was all Dems that voted for the bill just all Reps that voted against it. I also think it is good to see who voted nay and that they need to be out of office how can they stay in after voting against this bill what if it was their daughter this happened too?? Maybe their tune wouldnt change if those lobbyist gave them a couple hundred million to shut up.... who knows. Bottom line people recognized what is F&$%#@ up and changed it. Now if only they could do this more often.

I have to admit i'm a little taken aback by a few posts that i saw sticking up for what these democrats and republicans have voted for.

If you strip it of its legalese and spell it out with a crayon - it says this:

If you vote against this bill - then you are saying that it is okay for a corporation to decide for its self rather or not it should be allowed to be sued if one of it's employee's gets gang raped while on the job by another one (or many) of it's employee's

Democrat or republican...it doesn't matter.

The fact that i saw some republicans stand up and say "Government has no place telling private business what to do with their contracts" is proof enough.


This would be like your place of employment sneaking in a paragraph in your contract stating if you ever quit the company, that you're liable to repay all salary earned while you were employed within 10 years.


Except that we have laws making it so that they can't do that to your pocket book.

But ... they can rape you?

I am suprised McCain is on that list of rape enthusists..I thought he was more progressive than that. oh well, goes to show you.

Wonder if he will let his daughter work for these companys that have those clauses in them...

Several have pointed out correctly that this shouldnt be a partisan issue...this is a human decency issue.

Props to the republicans whom voted yes and went against their party line. Doing the right thing is clearly their concern more than doing the "*Right*" thing

One should demand answers from anyone whom voted no on this topic. Chances are the only reason for the no was simply to oppose the Dems no matter what. To hell with the country, Obama must fail.

Just because an official gave a "nay" vote, doesn't mean that they advocate the opposite.

A conscientious voter will do as our elected officials will do.

There are issues that I whole-heartedly agree with, but when they come up for vote, I sometimes vote against them.

Why?

Because sometimes legislation is too vague, or too poorly written, allowing for it to be abused.

Sometimes legislation is too broad, containing too many riders.

Sometimes legislation is written in such a way that it makes it legally contestable as unconstitutional.

Sometimes legislation makes too severe of demands unto being unreasonable upon certain demographics, despite it being for a good reason.

I may support the spirit of the legislation, but in good conscience I can't always vote for that legislation and may give a "Nay".

A "Nay" Vote can sometimes mean, "I agree, but not as it is worded now. Send it back to the drawing board and write a better thought out draft and I'll reconsider because I do agree with what you are trying to do, just not with how you are wording it."

[edit on 19-10-2009 by fraterormus]