Despite Wild Cobra's apocalyptic rant about all the jobs that will be lost and laywers that will get paid, the net result of this defense spending amendment is that one corporation is negatively affected. That corporation, Halliburton, just happens to be the Undisputed, Icon Of The Ages, Grand Champion of no-bid contracts.
Not at all. She's just a friend first of all, I use to go out with a friend of hers. Now I did buy some jewelry, but your insinuations are so ing re ed. How many ex wives do you have?
See, you liberals resort to defaming people when you have no good argument against them.
So you think the federal government should subsidize corporations that shield themselves from charges of rape and assault?SO once again this is your version of justice? Yeah ing liberals. With your amendments to take away money from a company. Not give it to the victim, just take it from the co. GO ahead. Take a bow.
Yeah sometimes I forget that they don't even read what we put, they just scan for misspellings.
That's not true. The legislation applies to all contractors with the DoD that fall under US law.
Why is the amendment here like spursncowboys points out? Why are we limiting this legislation to the Department of Defense contractors, and not contractors of other government agencies? If it's good law, why isn't it being made part of the Arbitration Fairness Act? Shouldn't it apply to every business in the USA?
cash, jewelry and begging wasn't enough, huh?
none, but i bet you have at least one very happy one.How many ex wives do you have?
you're protecting a company that rapes.See, you liberals resort to defaming people when you have no good argument against them.
Other government contracted corps raped their employees too? Do tell...
Why can't you and spursncowboys comprehend why an amendment specifically regarding the allocation of defense funds would be in a defense funding bill? Amazing...
Yes. If you two can't grok the difference between a contract dispute and a violent assault, I can't help you...
How does it matter? It will not address the legal concerns of this case. It's an ex-post-facto law!
Are you admitting to democrats targeting only one corporation? Isn't that illegal? Is it right? Are you admitting you are for such actions of bias?
I can and I do understand. If such legislation has any merit, why is it limited to the DoD? I wonder what Boeing thinks of the manager angle of this? Maybe this will force the DoD to only buy from Airbus?
All new laws are ex-post-facto, dumbass...we pass them to prevent it in the future.
Yes they are, and not it's not, because Halliburton isn't singled out specifically...they just happen to be the one defense contracted corporation trying to get away with raping their empolyees. And yes, I am biased against corporations that rape their employees.
Relax WC, this whoe "raping the employee" thing isn't the backbone of military-industrial complex...this isn't going to shut it down.
Then why not at least write legislation that applies to all government contracts? Why just the DoD? Are you saying it could never happen maybe to Blackwater contracted under the State Department?
I'm against the rape also. I say there should be long jail sentences not just for the seven who raped her, but everyone in the attempted cover-up also.
You simply do not pass bad law because it has one good thing in it. What part of that don't you understand?
If that was all that was covered...
Apparently you don't understand the implications of Frankin's amendment. It goes way past le VII protection from arbitration. I suggest you read it carefully and look at the abuses that can occur because of the law.
You know, if it was only addressing le VII, I could agree with it.
Why would anyone want to work for Haliburton?
Why does anyone work? Maybe it's the best offer someone has.
They need the money. It's a job, good or bad, WORK is a four letter word.
whatever else this is, its a gift to the legal industry.
A real big gift. Funny how the democrats do almost what ever the trial lawyers want.
Democrats want to lower the cost of medicine, but refuse to use serious tort reform. Could you imagine if frivolous lawsuits were a thing of the past? How many things would be cheaper?
^ wc protecting rapist if it would hurt a conservatives bottom line.
you didn't read the thread?
Funny how republicans do almost what ever corporate interests want.
Yes, if rape victims get to sue the companies that literally raped them, we all lose.
Yeah...maybe if I had listened to right wing radio 24/7 for the past 2 decades I'd get why your fears of imagined abuses would trump the real life abuses that have already occured.
Employees of the company raped an employee. Then other employees covered it up and denied her her rights by holding her. Stop trying to create boogy men.
Stop trying to excuse the corporation that enabled them.
I see the GOP is continuing to do a bang up job at picking fights they can't win.
Pro-business Repugs will always support ins utions and businesses as they abuse/rape citizens, consumers, employees.
No surprise that Repugs want to block raped women from suing their employer. A great way to piss off millions of women voters.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-12-2009 at 09:52 PM.
You seem like the kind of guy who I would have to think a little more cognitively if we agreed on something. I would have to double check my bases to make sure I didn't miss something.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote