Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gotta love those Republicans
onifre
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 6 of 11 (530998)
10-15-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Izanagi
10-15-2009 1:59 PM


I have to say, this makes me think that many Republicans really are acting like poor losers or spoiled brats, saying NO to everything because they aren't in control.
Fuck, I hate to sound like I'm supporting ANY side, but you failed to mention that 10 Rep did vote YES. Republicans shouldn't be signalled out for this one, IMO.
Especially when 10 voted for it, and you Mr. Izagani, curiously didn't mention that. Providing your own spin to it? LOL
So the bill ensures that the Defense Department will not give contracts to any business that refuses to allow an employee legal recourse for certain crimes or actions, such as rape. Who could argue with that, right?
Ehh, not exactly.
The exact Amendment: source
quote:
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.
It has nothing to do with "rape" specifically.
Also, it really does signal out Halliburton Company, and while I think they're a corrupt piece of shit company that should be burned to the ground, you can't signal them out in an Amendment like that. ESPECIALLY when the US uses them for every fuck'n overseas contract.
Just to add, I could see how the wording of the Amendment might be used for frivolous lawsuits. They also might want to avoid lawsuits from contractors like Blackwater employees and their families. However, I'm glad the Amendment passed.
Now, with that being said, John Stewart is hilarious!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 1:59 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 10-15-2009 6:12 PM onifre has replied
 Message 11 by Izanagi, posted 10-15-2009 11:24 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2981 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 8 of 11 (531021)
10-15-2009 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
10-15-2009 6:12 PM


Re: Actual language of the amendment
What you quoted was in essence a summary. I believe the actual amendment says:
The link didn't come up, Subbie. Something about a limited time...?
I'll look for it though, unless you can provide it again.
It also appears that the actual amendment doesn't mention any contractor or subcontractor specifically.
My link was from the Senate and it was quoted directly from the part reading Statement of Purpose:
My link again: US Senate Legislation
It specifically mentions Halliburton & KBR. I'd like to see your link though.
I'd be curious to hear the reasoning behind your suggestion that it might be about frivolous lawsuits.
I didn't say it was about frivolous lawsuits, I said:
ONI writes:
I could see how the wording of the Amendment might be used for frivolous lawsuits.
Honestly, I think the original reason for refusing to allow employees legal recourse was for contractors like Blackwater, not for rape victims.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 10-15-2009 6:12 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by subbie, posted 10-15-2009 7:38 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024