Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-21-2009, 01:34 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,472
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:06 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:19 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:22 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:27 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:41 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rearnakedchoke View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:57 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-27-2009, 09:37 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-27-2009, 09:45 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-27-2009, 11:07 PM
eric84
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.