What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
286 Comments
- Apokalyps2547, on 10/13/2009, -9/+173Let's get one of those diggers in here who say Republicans champion individual rights. I'm curious what their spin on this is.
- infectaphibian, on 10/14/2009, -10/+131Pro rape and anti abortion.
- mf2112, on 10/13/2009, -12/+131G.O.P. = Greedy Old Pricks
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 10/14/2009, -17/+102I'm a moderate Republican, and these ***** don't represent me or my beliefs.
- redlantern64, on 10/14/2009, -2/+69Only right wing fascists would applaud a vote on an amendment that restricts a person's constitutional rights in favor of a corporation's profit margin
- hanexar, on 10/14/2009, -14/+80Sorry, if you vote Republican, they do represent you. You better vote for someone else next time.
- redlantern64, on 10/14/2009, -1/+53But the OP says that only 30 voted against it, not that it was blocked, and that all 30 who voted against it were Republicans.
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ ...
Maybe you should read a little more closely. - Boogalou007, on 10/14/2009, -7/+59Now I know what the R really stands for in Republican.
- Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -6/+56So it's been almost 3 1/2 hours since this front-paged.
The highlights of the GOP apologists' defense of the indefensible (I'm paraphrasing to cut through the BS):
* ' I'm a Republican and these guys don't represent me ' (despite the fact that these guys are MOST of the Senate GOP. Time to find a new party, pal).
* ' She signed a contract, she accepted the risks ' (When signing a contract when applying for a job, should women now be wondering whether their employer will cover up a violent rape and disfigurement? If people need to ask themselves that, we have fallen centuries behind as a society).
* ' She had her day in court. This amendment is pointless! ' (She had to fight HARD to make it happen. Do we want these crimes repeating themselves?)
* ' Tenth Amendment! ' (You don't have a damn clue what it says.)
* ' Those trial lawyers will profit from this! ' (If that's the greater evil then you're twisted)
* "***** liberals." (Yeah! Down with people who oppose corporate rape cover-ups! Friggin' nutcase). - miffelplix, on 10/14/2009, -1/+50Republican's only concern is for the rich--the rest is just lip service to seduce poor, dumb ***** to their cause.
- naturegrrrl, on 10/14/2009, -6/+49I wonder if they even bothered to read it. I did, it wasn't very long and was clear and understandable. Did they vote no, just to say no to a Democratic amendment, or especially no to Al Franken or....what? Unbelievable! Especially since several of these fellows are going through their own personal sex scandals...
- BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -0/+41Since some here are trying to claim that the wording of the amendment was "too vague" or that it "prevents" arbitration or anything along those lines, here's the full text of the amendment:
"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."
In other words, it *specifically* covers:
--Rape
--Assault
--Torture
--Kidnapping
--Hiring sick, sadistic, twisted rapist pieces of *****.
Furthermore, it doesn't *prevent* arbitration, it just says that employees still have the right to sue in cases where arbitration is COMPLETELY inappropriate, such as claims of rape, kidnapping, etc. Furthermore, it doesn't even prevent companies from having those policies--it just says that the Federal Government won't do business with them if they do.
No room for "misinterpretation" or "misapplication" here. Absolutely ZERO excuses for voting against it. - Swift2, on 10/14/2009, -1/+39When the modern GOP says "individual," it means "employer," or "guy with the money." That's "the individual." Their individual rights are jealously protected. As for the people they rape and torture, stop the whining. "Others" are a faceless and unrepresented collective, the way Gawd planned it.
Was this based on one incident? Yes, but it does not apply to that incident, which would be legislating after the fact. But it does give a future person in this circumstance a legal leg to stand on. And the threat of withdrawing funding may be enough to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
The 10th amendment? Give me a break. These were federal contractors. They are threatened with their funding being cut off if such-and-such happens. You know, like Acorn's federal money was stopped when those tapes were released on FOX. - joelb1, on 10/14/2009, -2/+38I called both my senator's offices and told their staffers to inform the senators (from Kansas) I was very disappointed in their decision to vote against the Franken amendment. I suggest you all do the same. And on the off chance someone wants a quote. Shame on you for this. You should resign your positions as defenders of the American People and our freedoms. My father a lifelong Republican would be ashamed of you. He fought world war II and taught me we take care of those who fight for us, and the people that amendment was trying to protect are doing just that, even if they are doing it as contractors. Shame on you all. Joel Bradshaw, Wakeeney born, and Salina raised.
- syndalis, on 10/13/2009, -6/+42Yeah, the message of the republican party and the actions of their leadership have been disjointed for quite a while now; this is just a crystal-clear example of how far removed these jokers are from reality.
- Swayzeop, on 10/14/2009, -2/+37@ Charlotte That does fail to mention how long that Ms. Jones spent in court fighting to be allowed to actually try the case in open court. I do not disagree that the issue was a moot point for Ms. Jones but future cases would save many years worth of court fees by the passage of the Franken Amendment.
I would normally be against limiting the power of a contract, as contractual terms and rights should be maintained by both Congress and the judicial branch, but Franken had a point on this one. Forcing people to go into arbitration on something as serious as sexual assault would appear to be limiting the financial recourse due to the victims. Arbitrators are notorious for being less sympathetic than juries, KBR was in the wrong in this situation. The Amendment was a good idea to help move along any future cases. - micadjems, on 10/14/2009, -2/+34It's not like women can make logical decisions or anything
/s - BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -3/+35Before anyone tries to claim that the wording of the amendment was "too vague" or anything along those lines, here's the full text of the amendment:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./tem ...
"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."
In other words, it *specifically* covers:
--Rape
--Assault
--Torture
--Kidnapping
--Hiring sick, sadistic, twisted rapist pieces of *****.
No room for "misinterpretation" or "misapplication" here. Absolutely ZERO excuses for voting against it. - syndalis, on 10/14/2009, -2/+33Peanut,
Then you need to push a primary process in your state to get a real candidate from your party on the ballot; barring that, you might need to swallow some bad medicine (for you) and vote democrat next cycle to flush the system.
Then, when a viable, non-bought candidate comes along that matches your ideals, vote away. - BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -4/+35They *didn't* block the amendment--it passed. That isn't the point.
The point is that 30 Republican Senators essentially voted to allow legalized gang rape (as long as it was arbitrated). It really is that simple. - inactive, on 10/14/2009, -1/+31Rape-ublican
- DeadpoolPHP, on 10/14/2009, -6/+34That makes no sense *****. You just keep supporting a party that is pro-rape buddy.
- BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -2/+28The 5th circuit court only applies to Texas and Louisiana. The point of the amendment is to prevent OTHER women from being, essentially, legally gang raped if they don't happen to live in those states.
Not to mention that it's just plain sickening that ANY company would even try to claim that a gang rape should be "dealt with via arbitration" in the first place. - baseballpm, on 10/14/2009, -1/+26only care about you before you are born...
- Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -0/+24Out of all republicans, he found 30.
That is MOST of the Senate Republicans. They are the RULE among Senate Republicans, and the others are the EXCEPTION. - Swift2, on 10/14/2009, -1/+24Well, it wasn't blocked. The question is, how could these 30 vote against this provision? Do you want to fund rape and imprisonment by a federal contractor? Let's give Acorn all of its money back, then, and throw in whatever these brutes were getting.
- Moralogic, on 10/14/2009, -2/+23"Family Values" at work.
- inactive, on 10/14/2009, -2/+22Yeah! We should wait until many women are raped and those incidents are covered up. That would make it more important!!!
/s - downneck, on 10/14/2009, -2/+22they're defending individuals' right to rape
/s - Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -2/+21If it's a federal contract, what does the 10th Amendment have to do with it?
I know an extreme interpretation of the 10th is a standard fallback position for the far-Right, but have you actually read the thing? - cplusplus, on 10/14/2009, -3/+22They are for the right of individuals. Individual companies.
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 10/14/2009, -9/+27Well, if there's no such thing as a "moderate" Republican, then I must be a Democrat or Libertarian because I support abortion (under certain circumstances) and I support gay marriage unconditionally. I guess that makes me a really poor Republican, and by proxy a ***** awful human being, and going by your logic, I should just kill myself because I apparently have nothing good to contribute to society.
All the semantics aside, people like you who don't see the middle path and only believe in extremes are the reason why people hate far-left and far-right politics, and you're part of the reason why the two party system still flourishes to this day. Every article I've seen you post comments about has been nothing but bashing the right, and you're part of the reason why your so called "birthers" still have ammunition, because people like you provoke them on a daily basis.
Also, for what it's worth, I didn't read your entire diatribe because it's so ***** inane and stupid, I was afraid I'd lose two minutes of my life that I could use to be doing something worthwhile or productive. - Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -3/+21Having to fight so hard to punish people of such an obvious and heinous crime is a FAILURE of the system. Why vote AGAINST facilitating justice?
Oh. Right. Trial lawyers. - sneaker98, on 10/14/2009, -5/+22Alright, this one seems pretty evil, even by GOP standards. Surely there's gotta be a reason for this. Can I get someone to explain the opposite side? Why did they vote against this amendment?
- BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -0/+16First of all, they weren't voting on the full bill itself, they were voting on this particular amendment.
Secondly, I've posted the FULL TEXT of the amendment twice now, including immediately above your comment. It's very specific, and very narrow, and ONLY covers grievous offenses such as rape, kidnapping, torture etc.
Third, neither the ad nor the post says that "all Republicans" voted against the amendment--it says that all of those who voted against it were Republicans, which is true. Male Republicans, I might add--all 4 of the female GOP Senators voted *for* the amendment, thank God, as did 6 of their male counterparts who actually have something resembling a soul. - termerjur, on 10/14/2009, -0/+16PeanutCheeseBar I am an Independent and can see a lot of good in some "Republican" values. Just because I see that good and do not particularly hate the word "Republican" itself (in a larger historical context - as Lincoln was a Republican for instance - though in a very different time) this does not mean I want to lend support to a party that has clearly gone so enthusiastically ass-over-tea-kettle. I can see that perhaps some people might wish to remain in the party in the hope of effecting change but let's face it - the work involved to get this group to shift their gears is going to be unbelievable and woefully contentious.
Many "Democratic" views I happen to agree with - most of them due to an appeal to logic but some due to a generally deeper interest in the difficulties involved with reasoned compassion balanced with a will to defend, fight and sacrifice when common sense calls for it. Still I choose to not directly affiliate as Democrat because I find that it's more comfortable to critique this interesting group from some sense distence.
So my suggestion is that you let vitriol blow itself around how it will, critique it with some intelligence and humor and refrain from killing yourself (not that I really thought you were serious but some Republicans out there might be getting desperate for a personally theological event given that even Jesus may be to looking a bit cross eyed relative to all this foolishness).
Being a rational and thoughtful human being does not mean you must be in either party. Celebrate and explore your free mind and free will if you can - gaining insights where a party might offer it and leaving apparent delusions and hatreds where you find them. Celebrate and make it the "Home of the Free - Land of the Brave." - Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -2/+18I'm GLAD she got her day in court! Let's make it easier for others like her to get their day in court!
- 1fastdak, on 10/14/2009, -0/+15Are the Republicans even trying anymore?
- bpwrinn, on 10/14/2009, -0/+15You just love jumping in on this stuff don'cha.
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 10/14/2009, -4/+19I voted for Ron Paul; though I didn't agree with everything he says or does, he's the closest that the Republican Party has in terms of a "true Republican", unlike the morons elected to office in most of the other states.
- BlueDjinn, on 10/14/2009, -0/+14The actual vote was:
56 Democrats voted YES (2 of them didn't vote at all due to illness/scheduling conflicts)
2 Independents voted YES
10 Republicans voted YES (including all 4 female Republicans...shocking, I know)
30 Republicans voted NO.
If the Republicans in the Senate are truly representative of Republicans as a whole, that means that 75% of Republicans are slime. If they're *not* representative, then I'd advise Republican voters to choose more wisely during the next primaries.
That's pretty much the point of the ad, I'd say. - AManWithNoName, on 10/14/2009, -3/+17peanutcheesebar, it is clear to me that you are not a republican. You, my friend, are a conservative. Confused? Let me explain.
You're suffering under the delusion that Republicans are the conservative party. This isn't true, and hasn't been for ages. Thanks to the focus shift started by Reagan and brought too far by the Bushes, the Republican party is now a bunch of ultra-corrupt lunatics. The only remaining 'good republicans' are outliers such as yourself, who have yet to realize that they're still labeling themselves incorrectly.
I understand that you probably retain hope that Republicans can return to the way they once were, and that you probably don't see any better options that manage to fit your ideals, but you need to accept these changes and move on. If you are truly conservative, I suggest switching to Libertarian; if not, switch to Democrat. Or, you could try to create your own party! One with hookers, and blackjack! In fact, forget the politics!
The point is, if you say things like "I'm a Republican", moderate or no, you align yourself with that party, or at least a majority of their ideals. And I mean their REAL ideals, not the ones they claim to have. So either you relatively agree with the majority of Republican politicians, or you're not a Republican. - Josexph, on 10/14/2009, -1/+15 "To summarize the Republican position: As women, we are not "average Americans," and gang rape is not a "serious" issue. As women, no matter how powerful we become on our own merits, the Republican establishment will still be hoping for a man to come along and put us in our place.
You don't have to go very far beneath the Republican surface claims of equality-but-not-really to get to the rock-bottom sense that women just don't count, that our rights and our wellbeing are always subordinate to whatever interest of men they might conflict with. When it comes to it, even the (themselves sexist) notions of chivalry and protecting women come behind protecting the right of corporations to imprison their female employees to shield their male employees from rape charges and still get government contracts." - Apokalyps2547, on 10/14/2009, -0/+13Which part was inaccurate?
Non-partisanship is impossible when hacks such as yourself just rejects facts they don't like. - tmonsta1, on 10/14/2009, -0/+13yet you worship Reagan, a cowboy actor, who used his fame to get elected
***** off already - minidriver1, on 10/14/2009, -3/+15Exactly. These people would vote against the Cute Kitten, Playful Puppy, and Fluffy Bunny act if it had a (D) on the writers name.
That, or they think rape and torture are sexy. Oh wait, that's probably true too (which explains the sex scandals they are going through right now). - Moralogic, on 10/14/2009, -0/+12I think it is important for us to quit with the concept of Republican and Democrat. We need to be voting based on the individual, not the party. Someone voting for good Republicans and not bad ones should not be put to shame because of the bad ones that they do not support. Same goes for democrats. We need more parties in our system, and our existing parties actually have sub parties in them that we need to take a closer look at.
So please, lets digg deeper into the political system, get to understand these sub groups, and out the ones that are doing dirty dealings and have bad practices. - neomatrix724, on 10/14/2009, -1/+13I'm a moderate democrat and I see them being equally bought and paid for...
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 10/14/2009, -11/+23I didn't vote for McCain, and the popular consensus among left-leaning Diggers seems to be that all Republicans love the guy and voted for him in the last election; I did not.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 302 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is