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.

 

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
so i will carry an extra bottle of Rohypnol with me...just to make sure...




posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Didn't I talk to you about the use of weasel words before, SevenBeans? "Many" does not a valid argument make.


Oh yes how could I forget.

*****Attention Everyone******

"Many" is a "weasal word."

A statement such as "Many people think that aliens are visiting the earth," is unacceptable to TheWalkingFox. His brain cannot process the meaning of it (does many mean "one" or "all")? It confuses him terribly so please remove the word from your vocabulary.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Hey! John McCain and 29 other Republicans think that gang rape is perfectly ok. Fact is they voted against an anti gang rape bill last year.


Without a link or even a bill title/number, that is the epitome of a troll statement.

I will assume you are referring to S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
which reads


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


Sounds like a prohibited Ex Post Facto law to me, since Franken himself admits it is directed at Haliburton/KBR for a specific incident. The "Statement of Purpose" even names them.


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.


Now, how exactly does the amendment equate to a "anti-gang rape bill"? The answer is, it does not. It addresses Haliburton's policy of requiring employees to agree to arbitration to resolve matters between the employee and the company, rather than in civil court. It had no effect on the crime of rape, much less "gang rape" and had no effect on seeking justice against the perpetrators of the crime.

As a matter of fact, the court system handled this particular case properly, by not holding the woman's civil remedy to the arbitration contract and permitting her to seek some remedy (including the sexual assault) in court. So, Franken's amendment was just political showboating, anyway. federalappeals.net...

So, for those who swallowed WUK's hook, line and sinker... Try to determine if what you see is food or bait, before biting, aka starring a post.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


The point was made though, 30 Republicans sided for tax payer dollars going to companies to try and cover up gang rape.

Which means those 30 Republicans including John McCain are pro gang rape.


edit on 1/29/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The point was made though, 30 Republicans sided for tax payer dollars going to companies to try and cover up gang rape.

Which means those 30 Republicans including John McCain are pro gang rape.


Not by even the wildest stretch of the imagination. But, hey it sounds good to completely mischaracterize the vote. Again, It wasn't about the crime of rape. It was about using the term to stir emotions.

BTW, I started to watch your video, but.... The Youngs Turks???? Really???? From someone who continually lambasts Fox News as being biased?


edit on 29-1-2011 by WTFover because: edited last line

edit on 29-1-2011 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SevenBeans
 


Until the federal government takes these sick rapists and puts them where they belong, for life, then the federal government should pay for abortions that a rape victim wants to have. Period.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 



BTW, I started to watch your video, but.... The Youngs Turks???? Really???? From someone who continually lambasts Fox News as being biased?


I knew I would get that reaction. Sorry there wasn't a FOX News article making the same point.

The point of that amendment was this, why should our tax dollars go to pay for arbitration? Seriously? I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for mandatory arbitration in any case, let alone a case of gang rape.

To supposedly fiscally conservative republicans, saving tax payer dollars from being wasted seems like a no brainer.

But, instead, they decided that they wanted our tax payer dollars to be sent to companies that force arbitration. So, because of that and because of the reasons surrounding this amendment, it can be said with all honesty that John McCain and the other 29 Republicans who voted against this amendment are pro gang rape. Also anyone who votes for these 30 Republicans by proxy are also pro gang rape.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


In a move to curve abortion rights, the GOP decided to redefine rape as being only a product of force. This will effectively make date rape and other such non physical forced rape no longer rape ... . verses...meh...just sex
...

This will have consequences in real rape cases..."it is not rape, the federal government no longer recognises date rape as per this bill, therefore case dismissed!"


Please pay attention to the first 7 words (highlighted) of this thread. The Bill doesn't have anything to do with criminal prosecutions!

The rest of the initial post is either a deliberate misrepresentation, or the uninformed rant of someone who does not understand the difference between federal funding of abortions, and criminal assault against women.

The Bill is only about abortion funding; it does not restrict a woman's right to choose.

"Sexual assault" is a state-defined crime; which will not be affected by this Bill.

IMO, adults should be responsible for their conduct, not the federal government (us). Even in a "date rape" situation, the offender will still be subject to state prosecution.

As a practical matter, very few, if any victims of date rape will ever be affected by this legislation. It eliminates an "excuse" for the costs of an abortion to be transferred to the American public, when the offender should rightly bear the expense, as well as any criminal penalties that apply.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Hey! John McCain and 29 other Republicans think that gang rape is perfectly ok. Fact is they voted against an anti gang rape bill last year.


This is blatantly false. The provision had nothing to do with criminal prosecutions for sexual assault. If there was a grain of truth your off-topic assertions, you'd post the specific provisions.

(Al Franken's proposition was actually an anti-arbitration provision he wanted applied to a specific group of federal contractors for employment disputes, included those arising from sexual misconduct.)

So is it me or does the GOP have a pro rape agenda?

It must be you with the agenda.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrydog
so i will carry an extra bottle of Rohypnol with me...just to make sure...


If a LEO catches you with one you are to be arrested on site while confiscating the bottle.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Neurolanis
 


Way to grab one reference out of the odd 30 presented.

As for the bill itself, as the actual bill (thank you for posting that beezer) only pertains to abortions, I don't really see how the rape topic is relevant to this thread at all.

The bill only cites "‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER." (from beezer's post)

It doesn't look to change the definition of rape or how rape charges are applied. It is trying to limit funds for abortions only...shameless money grab? yes. Relevant to rape in law? Not so much.


Glad you finally brought that up.

Besides which, as far as I knew, rape was never a federal crime anyways, was it? and thus not amenable to definition, amendment, or repeal by the federal congress. Definition of rape varies from state to state as per what the state legislature decides, right?



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by aero56
Until the federal government takes these sick rapists and puts them where they belong, for life, then the federal government should pay for abortions that a rape victim wants to have. Period.


If someone beats the he ll out of me I don't expect you to pay for my medical costs.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for mandatory arbitration in any case, let alone a case of gang rape.

To supposedly fiscally conservative republicans, saving tax payer dollars from being wasted seems like a no brainer.


Whether it goes to pay for arbitration or to a team of attorneys and court costs, what difference does it make? It is still your and my money, being paid to a company for services rendered. If they are providing that service at a fair price (I know that is doubtful), it is not up to government to tell them how to spend their money. If the employee doesn't want to sign the arbitration contract, then they shouldn't.

But, back on topic, it is a moot issue anyway, as the courts rightly sided with the employee that it was outside the scope of the contract and the suit was allowed to proceed.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I guess it's not offensive to imply that all males are rapists waiting for the opportunity, but my calling out the OP on their sexist title is. No wonder this forum is so rinky dink and full of kids, lol. Sensitive ears!! Lamers.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join