It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep Vote Yes On Rape

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
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]




posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

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]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The implication that blackphoenix presents is that ALL republicans voted YES.
The thread is factually in error.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
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]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
its time to clean house on both sides, kick em all out and start over.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   
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'.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
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]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I'm no attorney. I seem to be confused. If the bill passes do they have the right to make you sign the statement?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
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]



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
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?



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
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]




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join