GoP defends gang rape.

[LeothaSamurai]

MyDD :: Thirty US Senators Voted to Defend Gang Rape

Basicly a chick was gang raped at Halliburton/KBR and was denied the ability to sue due to a clause in her contract.

So Franken wanted it ammended and 30 repub voted against it.
I can see their side as they dont want to go over board, but seriously?..
good times.

[pohibaba]

And people say that conservatives use divisive language.

[Kryssan]

Stewart was making fun of this earlier, yesterday or the day before I think?

[Mizango]

lol

[Max™]

Yesterday.

"I don't think it is our role to limit what these agencies can or can not put into contracts."
'What? That's your only role, did you ever read the description of what you do?'


On a related topic, what did Glenn Beck and that girl he raped think about it?

[Olo401]

This might be the first time I've seen MyDD linked here..

Anyways, to satisfy the actual news source thing before we get SwampLeif_Asura upset.. here's a media link:

MinnPost - Senate passes Franken amendment aimed at defense contractors

[Sepukku]

Who said she was gang raped? The girl? That doesn't mean she was gang raped. That means shes alleging that she was gang raped.

Was there a trial? Are specific individuals convicted?

Not to play devil's advocate, conservies are crazies, and Im glad PA isn't to be found on that list, but didnt we just have an issue a month or two ago with a girl claiming gang rape at a University and recanting her story 2-3 days later after all the men were arrested and harassed and interrogated?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So she signs a contract that says she will settle sexual assault allegations in private and then gets pissed when she can't sue? Sounds like she prevented herself from taking these allegations to court, not the GoP senators. Based on that snippet of information there's nothing fraudulent about that contract either.

[Suited Aces]

First off, who the fuck would sign a contract that said they can't sue if they get raped.

And second, what the fuck is wrong with our legal system when a contract is a admissible defense against a gang rape.

[Olo401]

And people say that conservatives use divisive language.

I'm curious how you would have this worded then.. and I'll refrain from saying more than that out of respect.

[LeothaSamurai]

i just thought it was lawlz really
not saying ether was in the right/wrong

[Xno Kappa]

Seriously, stop with the political bullshit when it comes to things like this. Obviously if your mother gets gang raped but can't sue due to a clause in her contract at work you'd be pissed too. At least most people...

[Abandon]

Before Miz says anything anti-Texas, NC went with it too.

[pohibaba]

I'm curious how you would have this worded then.. and I'll refrain from saying more than that out of respect.

The guy writing this article clearly didn't care about the reasons the GOP Senators voted against this. I haven't read anymore about this case, but I'm sure that they weren't interested in defending gang raped, but had a much more rational reason for voting this way, even if I would probably disagree with them on those reasons.

The guy who wrote this article is clearly entrenched on one side of the aisle and sees it as his job to paint the people on the other side as evil as possible without letting facts and reason get in his way. This is the same thing as calling President Obama a socialist for wanting the public option. It's divisive and it gets us no where in our discourse.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

First off, who the fuck would sign a contract that said they can't sue if they get raped.

And second, what the fuck is wrong with our legal system when a contract is a admissible defense against a gang rape.

There are a few reasons the contract might be void, but based on the fact pattern there's nothing wrong with the contract. If you don't like it, don't sign it.

And there's also no reason based on that snippet of information she can't bring criminal charges, unless she was doubly stupid and signed away her constitutional right to do so. Dumb bitch is dumb. (If she did that)

[ZarakiKujata]

ITT: Conservatives argue against gang rape victims.

[Xno Kappa]

If she can't file criminal charges then one can only assume it was a predatory-type contract to begin with, which I'm assuming it was because government contractors downrange are pretty much held to their own standards. Of course politicians who don't see what actually happens downrange with these KBR faggots could care less.

Go ahead though, continue to spin this bullshit.

[LeothaSamurai]

im sorry pohibaba that you didnt really read my 4 sentance post.

you know where i say i can see where they are coming from.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Contract didn't state anything of the sort. It stipulated that "problems" would have to be mediated in private. Protip: Signing a contract doesn't let you commit a federal crime. Franken's bill just stipulates that we won't hire companies that have contracts like this.

And this isn't even touching on the denial of medical care and wrongful imprisonment.

"Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration."

Unless she had no choice in signing the contract, then there is nothing wrong with it. And there's nothing in that little the fact pattern that prevents her from pursuing criminal charges.

[Leif]

month or two ago with a girl claiming gang rape at a University and recanting her story 2-3 days later after all the men were arrested and harassed and interrogated?

Didn't we have a famous case a few years ago where a group of Duke students were accused of gang raping a black woman. I've never seen the New York Times proclaim the defendants to be guilty so fast. When it turned out to be a complete hoax, it took weeks for the Times and liberal media to finally stop talking about it, during which they continued to insist they were guilty.

I hate to downplay the seriousness of rape, but when the left uses "real life" as a weapon, the "real life" is almost always complete fiction.

So, aside from the left's addiction to presenting make-believe stories as factually accurate, why else do we know this is a fraud?

Well, because approximately 1 out of every 2 stories about this bill have some sentence along the lines "Take that Cheney!". Considering Cheney resigned from Halliburton 9 years ago, I don't really think he had much to do with it.

Also, how about the fact that the contract doesn't say anything about criminal charges? I'm sure if there was a case they would charge them (well, after I think of Duke lacross, they would probably charge them anyways).

This is a silly bill that allows liberals to take a cheap shot at corporations using another phony victim.