PDA

View Full Version : 30 republicans vote AGAINST anti-rape bill


TheConcretekid
10-21-2009, 01:38 AM
I know we are a country divided.
We're experiencing some rough times.
The health care bill is causing tensions to run high on both sides of the aisle.

Luckily there was some legislation that was brought forward that anyone from any political background could get behind. It was inspired by the story of a teenager from Texas who was gang raped by military contractors while in Iraq. Here is her incredible story, please I beg you, watch this 5:30 minute video:
http://www.new.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1153293191487&ref=mf


For those of you who did not just watch that, or couldn't wrap their head around it, I'll sum it up:

19 year old Jamie Leigh Jones was an employee for Halliburton subsidiary KBR.
She was sent to Iraq and told she would share a trailer with another female employee.
Instead she was bunked in a barrack with several hundred male contractors.
Her reports and complaints to KBR about her living situation went unanswered.
On her fourth day in Iraq she was drugged and repeatedly vaginally and anally gang raped.
A doctor administered a rape kit, parts of which have disappeared. But they concluded she was in fact raped and experienced extensive injuries, including deformed breasts and torn pectoral muscles, and further unmentionable damages.
After she reported the incident she was locked in a shipping container with an armed guard and was refused any means to communicate with the outside world.
She was able to convince a guard to give her a cell phone, after which she called her father who contacted their congressman and they were able to get her home.

Upon seeking justice when she returned home, she found in the fine print of her contract with Halliburton that it listed 'assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring and supervision' as claims that belong under arbitration, and therefor cannot be brought against Halliburton in court.



Claims of sexual assault and acts of egregious violence do not belong in arbitration.

Sadly hers is not by any means the only case of this matter. After she spoke out countless others have reported similar stories.
So Sen. Al Franken proposed legislation to pass this into law. Due to his name or the little capital "D" that comes after his name, several representatives voting against this legislation via sheer, unadulterated, blind, unforgivable and absolutely disgusting partisanism.


Those who voted AGAINST the anti-rape legislation:
(Those marked with an *, see quotes below)

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)*
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)*
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)*
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)*
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)



See if you guys can guess which organization these fine gents are so upset with:

Mike Johanns (R-NE) - "My amendment would prohibit one more penny of tax payer money from going to ____"
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - "We got to get corruption out of any organization that is taking tax payers money"
Kit Bond (R-MO) - "Repeated abuses of tax payers dollars allowed to accrue in their name" ... "____ is not above the law!"
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - "It's unsustainable for a member of congress to justify the continued funding of this organization"

Did you figure out which organization it was?
Did you think they were angry at Halliburton?
That's a good guess, since they refuse to investigate the repeated gang rape of a teenager.
But wasn't Halliburton.
It was...
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.....
....
...
..
.

Acorn!
The company that gave a fake pimp fake advice for his fake prostitutes!


Now I doubt any of you will be pro Acorn, and thats besides the point, but don't you find it offensive, absurd and down right nauseating that these representatives are up in arms about the audacious Acorn but fail to make a peep when a teenage girl is repeatedly anally gang raped!?




Below is a link that lists all thirty legislators that are pro-rape as well as their contact information. I know that this forum is spread all over this country, so if you see your senator on that list, I beg of you, contact them and demand some answers. Ask them why our money is being given to a company like KBR that won't pursue rapist or protect women from sexual assault.
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/



Below is Sen. Al Franken delivering this legislation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKo-vy4010
And him questioning an arbitration lawyer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto


Give me a reason not to lose faith in all humanity.

NateR
10-21-2009, 02:01 AM
I agree with them and shame on the Liberal politicians for taking advantage of this situation to advance their left-wing agenda. That portion about ACORN should never have been lumped in with this bill.

This is simply dirty politics on the part of our increasingly Left-Wing government.

Of course, the small-minded ones out there will claim that these Republicans are "pro-rape," but hopefully the average person isn't stupid enough to actually believe that nonsense.

TheConcretekid
10-21-2009, 02:26 AM
I agree with them and shame on the Liberal politicians for taking advantage of this situation to advance their left-wing agenda. That portion about ACORN should never have been lumped in with this bill.

This is simply dirty politics on the part of our increasingly Left-Wing government.

Of course, the small-minded ones out there will claim that these Republicans are "pro-rape," but hopefully the average person isn't stupid enough to actually believe that nonsense.

Who is them? I hope it's not the 30 republicans that voted against this amendment.

And you're missing the point. it wasnt a pro-acorn statement, it was to contrast the senators reactions to a fake pimp and a real gang rape.

So these legislators are doing nothing to protect against or prevent essentially legal sexual assaults nor to bring charges against Halliburton or the guilty parties involved. Moreover they are funneling our tax money to fund this company. And you're ok with that?

If you watched her speak about being gang raped and thought, "Ah-ha!! Liberal Media!! HUR!! Dirty Politics!! DUR!!" than you are just as blind and partisan as those who voted against this legislation.



Let me ask you NateR, what part about a company treating a teenager like this, and the group of men who repeatedly raped, assaulted and sodomized a 19 year old girl, is just and deserves no punishment, that no further actions should take place? She was fired for speaking out, justice served, right?

NateR
10-21-2009, 02:34 AM
Who is them? I hope it's not the 30 republicans that voted against this amendment.

And you're missing the point. it wasnt a pro-acorn statement, it was to contrast the senators reactions to a fake pimp and a real gang rape.

So these legislators are doing nothing to protect against or prevent essentially legal sexual assaults nor to bring charges against Halliburton or the guilty parties involved. Moreover they are funneling our tax money to fund this company. And you're ok with that?

If you watched her speak about being gang raped and thought, "Ah-ha!! Liberal Media!! HUR!! Dirty Politics!! DUR!!" than you are just as blind and partisan as those who voted against this legislation.



Let me ask you NateR, what part about a company treating a teenager like this, and the group of men who repeatedly raped, assaulted and sodomized a 19 year old girl, is just and deserves no punishment, that no further actions should take place? She was fired for speaking out, justice served, right?

They had no business attaching anything about ACORN to that bill. If the Liberals really cared about this girl and her situation, then they would have let it slide through without bogging it down with their left-wing agenda.

Of course, they knew that if the Republicans voted against it, then they would be able to smear them and make them appear to be "pro-rape" (which only a brainwashed liberal would actually believe). So this was all carefully crafted to continue to make Republicans look bad in the public eye.

Why is this even a Federal government issue? Since when is Congress a law enforcement agency?

TheConcretekid
10-21-2009, 02:58 AM
1) Acorn is not in this legislation.
2) Are you saying it's not the government's business to decide with whom and how the government does business?

NateR
10-21-2009, 03:09 AM
1) Acorn is not in this legislation.

Are you sure? Is there a copy of it online that we can both read?

J.B.
10-21-2009, 03:14 AM
Just what charges do you expect should be filed against Haliburton?

You make it sound like Haliburton put their subsidiary company and it's male employees up to gang-raping the girl. :rolleyes:

Neezar
10-21-2009, 05:42 AM
I think the wording of the bill would have restricted the govt from contracting out to any company that required it's employees to sign agreement for arbitration instead of a court trail. That would basically knock out most companies. Those companies have those clauses for a reason.

Neezar
10-21-2009, 05:45 AM
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.


(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

flo
10-21-2009, 06:56 AM
I think the wording of the bill would have restricted the govt from contracting out to any company that required it's employees to sign agreement for arbitration instead of a court trail. That would basically knock out most companies. Those companies have those clauses for a reason.

I'm glad you posted about the bill, that makes a lot of sense.

Neezar
10-21-2009, 02:34 PM
First off I would like to say that this is a HORRIBLE story and my heart goes out to the girl. AND I think that company should pay dearly for putting her in that situation. But I can't help but wonder if the part is true about her being promised a private residence with another female. (doesn't matter in the end, but still)

However, I must say that all this seems so wrong from the beginning. There is no way that I would allow my 19 yoa child in a war zone if they weren't in the military and trained. I am shocked that her family allowed that. I would like to know if she/her family was aware of the dangers of traveling overseas into a war zone even as a priviate contractor and if she chose to go anyway.

Note: I am NOT laying any blame on her. I am getting to a point here.

I think that this bill is focusing on the wrong thing here. Why would you just try to make a law that would allow people to sue for money (remember this has nothing to do with the criminal side of things) after the fact? Why not propose a bill that would regulate who would be allowed to be hired for private contracting (esp in a war zone) AND have a mandatory disclosure clause stating the intended employee was made aware of the conditions and dangers previous to entering employment contract. This would cover the end result that they are proposing that they want, the victim to be able to sue in a court instead of arbritration. AND this would weed out the bs that is included now such as harassment at work. Who the hell doesn't get teased at work sometimes? Or working in a hostile environment? IMO, those are petty things that don't need to tie up our court systems. The wording of the bill now doesn't separate sexual assault from someone calling you a 'bitch' at work. I think that is the main problem with the bill.

Crisco
10-21-2009, 04:06 PM
I don't think the girl has grounds to sue because she got raped that is just trying to make a profit from the company however if she is telling the truth about what happened after the fact being locked in a container and not being allowed to contact family that is grounds for taking the company to court especially is portions of her rape kit disappeared because that shows evidence for tampering.

rearnakedchoke
10-21-2009, 04:19 PM
I agree with them and shame on the Liberal politicians for taking advantage of this situation to advance their left-wing agenda. That portion about ACORN should never have been lumped in with this bill.

This is simply dirty politics on the part of our increasingly Left-Wing government.

Of course, the small-minded ones out there will claim that these Republicans are "pro-rape," but hopefully the average person isn't stupid enough to actually believe that nonsense.

no, but if someone is pro-choice, doesn't that make them pro-abortion? I have heard that term on here all the time ... couldn't you make the same claim with that?

J.B.
10-21-2009, 04:22 PM
First off I would like to say that this is a HORRIBLE story and my heart goes out to the girl. AND I think that company should pay dearly for putting her in that situation. But I can't help but wonder if the part is true about her being promised a private residence with another female. (doesn't matter in the end, but still)

However, I must say that all this seems so wrong from the beginning. There is no way that I would allow my 19 yoa child in a war zone if they weren't in the military and trained. I am shocked that her family allowed that. I would like to know if she/her family was aware of the dangers of traveling overseas into a war zone even as a priviate contractor and if she chose to go anyway.

Note: I am NOT laying any blame on her. I am getting to a point here.

I think that this bill is focusing on the wrong thing here. Why would you just try to make a law that would allow people to sue for money (remember this has nothing to do with the criminal side of things) after the fact? Why not propose a bill that would regulate who would be allowed to be hired for private contracting (esp in a war zone) AND have a mandatory disclosure clause stating the intended employee was made aware of the conditions and dangers previous to entering employment contract. This would cover the end result that they are proposing that they want, the victim to be able to sue in a court instead of arbritration. AND this would weed out the bs that is included now such as harassment at work. Who the hell doesn't get teased at work sometimes? Or working in a hostile environment? IMO, those are petty things that don't need to tie up our court systems. The wording of the bill now doesn't separate sexual assault from someone calling you a 'bitch' at work. I think that is the main problem with the bill.

I agree with what you are saying completely, and I don't lay any blame on her for what happened.

If the company knowingly lied to her or conspired to cover anything up, then she has a good reason to sue them. Otherwise, I view it as a criminal matter that is the responsibility of the guilty individuals and not any fault of the company. The law, however, is not that simple and that is one of the many reasons our systems are so clogged with frivolous cases.

J.B.
10-21-2009, 04:27 PM
no, but if someone is pro-choice, doesn't that make them pro-abortion? I have heard that term on here all the time ... couldn't you make the same claim with that?

No, you can't.

NateR
10-21-2009, 04:41 PM
no, but if someone is pro-choice, doesn't that make them pro-abortion? I have heard that term on here all the time ... couldn't you make the same claim with that?

No, because a Pro-Choice person does not believe that abortion is a crime. Every single one of these Republicans would agree that rape is a crime.

Also, the way that these bills are worded is much more complex than just:

Are you for or against rape?

For
Against

There are many different parts with Congressmen tacking on completely unrelated legislation to advance their own agenda. Thus, we're only seeing a part of the picture, not the whole story. This whole "pro-rape" angle was clearly cooked up to continue to vilify Conservatives in the eyes of the public.

J.B.
10-21-2009, 04:57 PM
No, because a Pro-Choice person does not believe that abortion is a crime. Every single one of these Republicans would agree that rape is a crime.

Also, the way that these bills are worded is much more complex than just:



There are many different parts with Congressmen tacking on completely unrelated legislation to advance their own agenda. Thus, we're only seeing a part of the picture, not the whole story. This whole "pro-rape" angle was clearly cooked up to continue to vilify Conservatives in the eyes of the public.

Basically exactly what I was going to write, but then I just decided that "No, you can't" would suffice. :)

Though I would even take it a step further and say that anybody who claims to be "pro-choice" is actually condoning abortion, be it directly or indirectly.

Buzzard
10-27-2009, 10:37 PM
I agree with them and shame on the Liberal politicians for taking advantage of this situation to advance their left-wing agenda. That portion about ACORN should never have been lumped in with this bill.

The Republicans in question are the ones who brought up ACORN.

This is simply dirty politics on the part of our increasingly Left-Wing government.

Yep, those dirty Republican conservatives sure do play dirty politics.

Of course, the small-minded ones out there will claim that these Republicans are "pro-rape," but hopefully the average person isn't stupid enough to actually believe that nonsense.

And the small-minded conservative republicans will use any excuse they can to push an anti-ACORN agenda saying they shouldn't get any federal money while some of Haliburtons contractors gang rape, but they should still get federal money.

First off I would like to say that this is a HORRIBLE story and my heart goes out to the girl. AND I think that company should pay dearly for putting her in that situation. But I can't help but wonder if the part is true about her being promised a private residence with another female. (doesn't matter in the end, but still)

However, I must say that all this seems so wrong from the beginning. There is no way that I would allow my 19 yoa child in a war zone if they weren't in the military and trained.

How would you legally stop an adult from making that decision?

I am shocked that her family allowed that. I would like to know if she/her family was aware of the dangers of traveling overseas into a war zone even as a priviate contractor and if she chose to go anyway.

Even if her family didn't allow that, the teen in question is an adult and is allowed by law to make her own decisions.

I'm pretty sure she was aware of the dangers from the war zone perspective. I doubt she thought she would be gang raped and held hostage by her employer and their employees.

Note: I am NOT laying any blame on her. I am getting to a point here.

I think that this bill is focusing on the wrong thing here. Why would you just try to make a law that would allow people to sue for money (remember this has nothing to do with the criminal side of things) after the fact?

Bringing a civil suit allows for monetary compensation whereas the criminal side wouldn't. Also the burden of proof is lower in the civil suit. Hit them in their pockets. Remember the OJ civil trial?

Why not propose a bill that would regulate who would be allowed to be hired for private contracting (esp in a war zone) AND have a mandatory disclosure clause stating the intended employee was made aware of the conditions and dangers previous to entering employment contract. This would cover the end result that they are proposing that they want, the victim to be able to sue in a court instead of arbritration. AND this would weed out the bs that is included now such as harassment at work. Who the hell doesn't get teased at work sometimes? Or working in a hostile environment? IMO, those are petty things that don't need to tie up our court systems. The wording of the bill now doesn't separate sexual assault from someone calling you a 'bitch' at work. I think that is the main problem with the bill.

Why don't you write to you senator and ask them this? As it is, the republicans don't give a damn about anything but their money. Surely this poor teen is a thorn in their side who may take away some of the money that the greedy sob's want in their own pockets.

Buzzard
10-27-2009, 10:45 PM
No, because a Pro-Choice person does not believe that abortion is a crime.

Can you please show me the criminal statutes that say abortion is a crime?

Every single one of these Republicans would agree that rape is a crime.

Just don't let it take money out of their pockets.


There are many different parts with Congressmen tacking on completely unrelated legislation to advance their own agenda. Thus, we're only seeing a part of the picture, not the whole story. This whole "pro-rape" angle was clearly cooked up to continue to vilify Conservatives in the eyes of the public.

The actions by the conservatives showed them for what they are and allowed all to see their true colors. All one has to do is look at the hatred spewed forth from the conservative side to see them for what they are. Being pro-torture and pro-death says a lot and makes it easy to see the blackness of their hearts.

eric84
10-28-2009, 12:07 AM
No, because a Pro-Choice person does not believe that abortion is a crime. Every single one of these Republicans would agree that rape is a crime.

Also, the way that these bills are worded is much more complex than just:



There are many different parts with Congressmen tacking on completely unrelated legislation to advance their own agenda. Thus, we're only seeing a part of the picture, not the whole story. This whole "pro-rape" angle was clearly cooked up to continue to vilify Conservatives in the eyes of the public.

I completely agree, until I see all this bill involved, I won't condemn the conservatives. I also think some of those immediately vilifying the conservatives wouldn't be so quick to lay it on had they been liberals, judging by a lot of the pass posts I've seen. I think both sides have a lot of trash on it, but at least try to look at it from a non biased perspective till we see all the facts and explanations.


The actions by the conservatives showed them for what they are and allowed all to see their true colors. All one has to do is look at the hatred spewed forth from the conservative side to see them for what they are. Being pro-torture and pro-death says a lot and makes it easy to see the blackness of their hearts.

Yea, because liberals are just so nice and don't have any bad things about them at all.... If your comment didn't breath of so much hatred I might be able to agree with you a little bit, but I just can't. I don't think any of them are "pro-death", but many of them are probably "pro-death penalty". I'll assume you just didn't finish it off, but there is a HUGE difference. I'm registered Independent, but I obviousely lean towards conservatism. I would have to say both sides spew pretty close to the same amount, but if I had to choose who did more it would be the left.

Neezar
10-28-2009, 12:13 AM
Why don't you write to you senator and ask them this? As it is, the republicans don't give a damn about anything but their money. Surely this poor teen is a thorn in their side who may take away some of the money that the greedy sob's want in their own pockets.

I don't have to write him. I can call him. :) And the votes against this were not about money. The other side KNEW beforehand that these senators were going to vote against it if they didn't take the broaden terms out to subject the companies to any and every complaint. The term 'harassment' could cover virtually anything.

Tell me what you think of arbritration and if you think it is a good and fair thing.

Anything that happens internationally would be required to be settled in a Federal court. I don't think we need Federal courts held up with every disgruntled employee that comes home from over there. And that is exactly what it would turn into.

If this was only about that girl then it would be different. But it's not.

NateR
10-28-2009, 02:15 AM
The actions by the conservatives showed them for what they are and allowed all to see their true colors. All one has to do is look at the hatred spewed forth from the conservative side to see them for what they are. Being pro-torture and pro-death says a lot and makes it easy to see the blackness of their hearts.

Why does reading this post conjure up the image of a wild-eyed lunatic, frothing at the mouth and spraying the computer screen with spittle as he types? :rolleyes:

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 03:00 AM
Why does reading this post conjure up the image of a wild-eyed lunatic, frothing at the mouth and spraying the computer screen with spittle as he types? :rolleyes:

It's probably because:

A: You are looking in the mirror.
B: You are seeing your own reflection in your monitor.
C: All of the above.

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 03:07 AM
Rapists should receive nothing short of the death penalty.
That or rape.

I would literally like to let them choose.

NateR
10-28-2009, 04:23 AM
It's probably because:

A: You are looking in the mirror.
B: You are seeing your own reflection in your monitor.
C: All of the above.

Um, no. You're the only one coming off like a hate-filled lunatic in this thread.

Well, you and Concretekid. :laugh:

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 05:51 AM
Um, no. You're the only one coming off like a hate-filled lunatic in this thread.

Well, you and Concretekid. :laugh:

Ah Nate, there you go again with the personal attacks. I thought you were out of elementary school. My mistake.

You are pro-death (doesn't matter if an innocent life gets caught up in the middle), pro-torture (who cares if it doesn't work as long as we can torture someone), and anti-gay marriage (teach those suckers for being different and wanting a stable family). Seems the hate is on your side of the fence and your lunacy can be read here on this forum in the many rants that you have spewed.

Sweet dreams.

NateR
10-28-2009, 06:06 AM
Ah Nate, there you go again with the personal attacks. I thought you were out of elementary school. My mistake.

You are pro-death (doesn't matter if an innocent life gets caught up in the middle), pro-torture (who cares if it doesn't work as long as we can torture someone), and anti-gay marriage (teach those suckers for being different and wanting a stable family). Seems the hate is on your side of the fence and your lunacy can be read here on this forum in the many rants that you have spewed.

Sweet dreams.

:rolleyes:

Typical Liberal tactic, when you aren't intellectually capable of understanding a different point of view, then simply resort to lies and slander.

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 06:11 AM
I know we are a country divided.
We're experiencing some rough times.
The health care bill is causing tensions to run high on both sides of the aisle.

Luckily there was some legislation that was brought forward that anyone from any political background could get behind. It was inspired by the story of a teenager from Texas who was gang raped by military contractors while in Iraq. Here is her incredible story, please I beg you, watch this 5:30 minute video:
http://www.new.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1153293191487&ref=mf


For those of you who did not just watch that, or couldn't wrap their head around it, I'll sum it up:

19 year old Jamie Leigh Jones was an employee for Halliburton subsidiary KBR.
She was sent to Iraq and told she would share a trailer with another female employee.
Instead she was bunked in a barrack with several hundred male contractors.
Her reports and complaints to KBR about her living situation went unanswered.
On her fourth day in Iraq she was drugged and repeatedly vaginally and anally gang raped.
A doctor administered a rape kit, parts of which have disappeared. But they concluded she was in fact raped and experienced extensive injuries, including deformed breasts and torn pectoral muscles, and further unmentionable damages.
After she reported the incident she was locked in a shipping container with an armed guard and was refused any means to communicate with the outside world.
She was able to convince a guard to give her a cell phone, after which she called her father who contacted their congressman and they were able to get her home.

Upon seeking justice when she returned home, she found in the fine print of her contract with Halliburton that it listed 'assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring and supervision' as claims that belong under arbitration, and therefor cannot be brought against Halliburton in court.



Claims of sexual assault and acts of egregious violence do not belong in arbitration.

Sadly hers is not by any means the only case of this matter. After she spoke out countless others have reported similar stories.
So Sen. Al Franken proposed legislation to pass this into law. Due to his name or the little capital "D" that comes after his name, several representatives voting against this legislation via sheer, unadulterated, blind, unforgivable and absolutely disgusting partisanism.


Those who voted AGAINST the anti-rape legislation:
(Those marked with an *, see quotes below)

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)*
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)*
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)*
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)*
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)



See if you guys can guess which organization these fine gents are so upset with:

Mike Johanns (R-NE) - "My amendment would prohibit one more penny of tax payer money from going to ____"
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - "We got to get corruption out of any organization that is taking tax payers money"
Kit Bond (R-MO) - "Repeated abuses of tax payers dollars allowed to accrue in their name" ... "____ is not above the law!"
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - "It's unsustainable for a member of congress to justify the continued funding of this organization"

Did you figure out which organization it was?
Did you think they were angry at Halliburton?
That's a good guess, since they refuse to investigate the repeated gang rape of a teenager.
But wasn't Halliburton.
It was...
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.....
....
...
..
.

Acorn!
The company that gave a fake pimp fake advice for his fake prostitutes!


Now I doubt any of you will be pro Acorn, and thats besides the point, but don't you find it offensive, absurd and down right nauseating that these representatives are up in arms about the audacious Acorn but fail to make a peep when a teenage girl is repeatedly anally gang raped!?




Below is a link that lists all thirty legislators that are pro-rape as well as their contact information. I know that this forum is spread all over this country, so if you see your senator on that list, I beg of you, contact them and demand some answers. Ask them why our money is being given to a company like KBR that won't pursue rapist or protect women from sexual assault.
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/



Below is Sen. Al Franken delivering this legislation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKo-vy4010
And him questioning an arbitration lawyer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto


Give me a reason not to lose faith in all humanity.

TheConcretekid, thanks for putting up this post and the links along with it. I first heard of this on the Jon Stewart show and couldn't believe it at first. I thought it was going to be some kind of skit. Then it hit me, and when I heard the republicans bring up no tolerance for ACORN yet didn't give a damn about funding companies that tolerate that kind of abuse it saddened me that so many people don't give a damn about people any more.

I would have started a thread on this myself but at the time I was seriously ill with a bacteria infection and was bed-ridden for almost 2 weeks. How those 30 can sleep at night with a clear conscience is beyond me.

J.B.
10-28-2009, 06:24 AM
TheConcretekid, thanks for putting up this post and the links along with it. I first heard of this on the Jon Stewart show and couldn't believe it at first. I thought it was going to be some kind of skit. Then it hit me, and when I heard the republicans bring up no tolerance for ACORN yet didn't give a damn about funding companies that tolerate that kind of abuse it saddened me that so many people don't give a damn about people any more.

I would have started a thread on this myself but at the time I was seriously ill with a bacteria infection and was bed-ridden for almost 2 weeks. How those 30 can sleep at night with a clear conscience is beyond me.

The Daily Show

Fueling ass-backward logic and college humor since 1996.

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 06:40 AM
The Daily Show

Fueling ass-backward logic and college humor since 1996.

Yep, my bad in not naming it correctly. You got me there.:ashamed: It was a good show and he hit the nail on the head.

:rolleyes:

Typical Liberal tactic, when you aren't intellectually capable of understanding a different point of view, then simply resort to lies and slander.

I see that in you all the time. You should quit looking in the mirror too much, vanity doesn't become you.

Do you even know what the word slander means? I seriously doubt that you do. Look it up next time you decide to use it and you may learn something. What lies and slander did I resort to? You are pro-death penalty aren't you, even if it catches an innocent person in the web? You are pro-torture too aren't you, even though an innocent person or suspect could be caught up in that web too? You are against gays getting married too aren't you? If you wish I could link you to your own words in case you have forgotten them.

It seems that you don't comprehend a lot of what you read and twist things to fit your own agenda.:wacko:

Neezar
10-28-2009, 12:00 PM
TheConcretekid, thanks for putting up this post and the links along with it. I first heard of this on the Jon Stewart show and couldn't believe it at first. I thought it was going to be some kind of skit. Then it hit me, and when I heard the republicans bring up no tolerance for ACORN yet didn't give a damn about funding companies that tolerate that kind of abuse it saddened me that so many people don't give a damn about people any more.

I would have started a thread on this myself but at the time I was seriously ill with a bacteria infection and was bed-ridden for almost 2 weeks. How those 30 can sleep at night with a clear conscience is beyond me.

What should sadden you is the fact that the people who wrote the bill had to add in their personal agenda knowing it would meet resistance. They are the ones who didn't give a damn about the victims here.

This bill is like cutting your hand off to get rid of a splinter. If they had just dealt with the splinter then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 07:49 PM
What should sadden you is the fact that the people who wrote the bill had to add in their personal agenda knowing it would meet resistance. They are the ones who didn't give a damn about the victims here.

This bill is like cutting your hand off to get rid of a splinter. If they had just dealt with the splinter then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

What personal agenda that was added to the bill are you referring to?

Crisco
11-05-2009, 07:41 PM
What personal agenda that was added to the bill are you referring to?

I know this is late I'm just curious...

You keep talking about how we are pro-death and pro-torture..

How do you feel about abortion? Do you think abortion is ok?

If you do why do you feel it's ok to kill a growing child but not ok to put a convicted murderer to death?

Buzzard
11-07-2009, 10:24 AM
I know this is late I'm just curious...

You keep talking about how we are pro-death and pro-torture..

How do you feel about abortion? Do you think abortion is ok?

If you do why do you feel it's ok to kill a growing child but not ok to put a convicted murderer to death?

No, I've said before on here that I am against abortion, though in cases of rape I would have to go against my own views and allow it as long as it was done in the very early stages of pregnancy.

I'm all for punishing murderers and other criminals, but not with the sentence of death.

I'm also against killing for sport and trophies.

Crisco
11-07-2009, 03:15 PM
No, I've said before on here that I am against abortion, though in cases of rape I would have to go against my own views and allow it as long as it was done in the very early stages of pregnancy.

I'm all for punishing murderers and other criminals, but not with the sentence of death.

I'm also against killing for sport and trophies.

But does it make sense to you that we should we should terminate the life of a baby who was a product of rape but not the grown man who commited the rape?

Buzzard
11-07-2009, 11:05 PM
But does it make sense to you that we should we should terminate the life of a baby who was a product of rape but not the grown man who commited the rape?

That's a real good question Crisco. I thinking forcing the mother to carry to term a product of the crime committed against her is punishing her for being raped.

I see a difference in a fully formed viable adult and an embryo. Maybe in the future I will change my views, but at this time I believe the victim of the rape has more rights than the embryo. It's a tough call and not an easy one for me. I am thankful that I won't ever have to make that decision.

Given more time to think about it, I may be able to explain my position better.

Crisco
11-12-2009, 05:15 AM
That's a real good question Crisco. I thinking forcing the mother to carry to term a product of the crime committed against her is punishing her for being raped.

I see a difference in a fully formed viable adult and an embryo. Maybe in the future I will change my views, but at this time I believe the victim of the rape has more rights than the embryo. It's a tough call and not an easy one for me. I am thankful that I won't ever have to make that decision.

Given more time to think about it, I may be able to explain my position better.

I understand.

You do not feel that an Embryo is yet a person hence your early term stipulation.

I get it.

I guess that becomes a matter of opinion as there is science for both arguements and you do not hold the bible in regard so the ability to back up your feelings with scripture is unimportant to you.

Thats tough man and I don't envy your confusion. I use to be the same way.

I wont condescend to you or anything and even though we do argue I do pray for you man... I hope eventually you find the right path whatever it may be and I know you personally will most likely not be performing or having an abortion done so it makes the choice harder.

Do I feel abortion is wrong? Yes. Should it be illegal? I don't know.

The morallity of something is best on God, however, I feel the legality of things should be based on science.

I never want to live in a place where Christianity is forced on anyone. If God gave man free will, we have no right to take it away. Being saved is a personal choice and you can never force it on someone.

I believe forced conversion is what separates us from the barbarians(Islam).

I kind of rambled there. What I'm saying is if science can prove its a living person it should be illegal if not then it shouldn't. BUT I repeat I do not believe in Abortion and I don't think anyone should choose that route.