TeeHee, anybody remember Winnie The Pooh and the Heffalump Trap?

Politico quoted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as saying. "What's going on politically with the amendment Sen. Franken can't control, but I think it would be helpful for him personally to just let the rest of us know that's the views of others not him."

LOL.

Pathetic.

Lindsay Graham wheedling away at Franken to save him from the big, bad, satirical monsters of the intrawebs?

Obviously, these 20 outta 30 Gophers who voted against the Franken ammendment (designed to tell the Blackwaters of the world that they can't make people sign their human rights away for a job) are not PRO-RAPE per se.

They are merely unprincipled corporate whores who will always take the side of a corporate person over a real person.

Even a rape victim.

Again. Pathetic.

Good eye, Rein.

Be Well.

Franken has to be getting a good laugh out of this one. I know I am.

I'll help the Senators out here and give them an explanation they can use whenever asked about their vote.

"I do not in any way support physical rape of individuals. I do support the financial rape of the American people by multi-national corporations. That is why I opposed this bill. We must not place restrictions on commerce otherwise the socialists win."

Tort reform is needed now.

chickenranchers for rape!!

chickenranchers for rape!!

#7 | Posted by klifferd

No, I will not date you.

We know they all love rapist and murderer Glen Beck.

The GOP is certainly not in favor of rape.
They're just indifferent to it. How else
do you explain their position that a victim
of rape should not be able to get an abortion?

#7 | Posted by klifferd

No, I will not date you.

#8 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-12-03 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag: Not enough feathers for arousal.

of course you wouldn't date me..

than it would be chicken ranchers for date rape.

you just want old fashioned anonymous rape.

Dems just give it to you up the ass....full BOHICA

The problem with so-called tort reform as advocated by the GOP is well illustrated by this episode. Corporations which arguably are responsible for the criminal acts of their subsidiaries are relieved of all responsibility. While this may make GOPhers and their corporate masters happy, it is not necessarily justice. Not when the corporation has been obscenely negligent or recklessly indifferent.

Franken has to be getting a good laugh out of this one. I know I am.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Finaly I agree with you dok. The law all wrote is stupid and funny is anyone takes it seriously. I'll bet the comedian is laughing his stupid ass off.

probably a bigger sin that approving rape is just not giving a damn that a woman who was serving in the foreign interests of the United states was repeatedly raped and no one gave a damn. These assholes will tell you they are leaders. what horse shit

Republicans for rape. Just because they don't feel--just like I do--that the employer is necessarily at fault because of a rape by co-workers.

But if it passes, it'll be interesting. Would the government be on the hook for rapes that take place, say, on city buses? Or on a military installation? Can soldiers sue the government for what happened at Fort Hood?

Open the checkbooks, douches. The Dems want to make a political point, but, as usual, will run up an enormous tab, paid by the rest of us. Party on! Gobama! GoBoxer!

Rep Senators: We are not Pro-Rape, we are just Anti-Women Saying No.

rape, torture, lies fear and hate. The republican way!

you know you are in trouble when you have to deny you support rape.

They lost my vote. Which is the "Rape Party" again? I bet their conventions rock.

you know you are in trouble when you have to deny you support rape

Our "moral watchdogs" in the republican party should realize that this is a slippery slope.

One day you're forcing your religious beliefs down someone's throat, and the next day you're forcing something fleshier into the same orifice.

Rapepublicans-They support rape as long as its the
wealthy doing the raping.

Republicans for rape. Just because they don't feel--just like I do--that the employer is necessarily at fault because of a rape by co-workers. - Posted by RightisRight

I guess you approve of how they locked her up in a storage container for several days after being raped and threatened her not to tell anybody. Halliburton doesn't dispute they did that. They only dispute that an arbitrator should decide. So...are you pro-rape also?

I know I am.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-12-03 06:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tiny minds are easily amused. Especially with a BIG bottle of cherry vodka .. and mom made meatloaf.

No reason to leave my basement for days!

Gimme a (cyber) high five!

The GOP...

Insulating big business from culpability too crime...

Every time...

It's not just these politicians who don't protect women, it's the employers as well.

The very fact women have to sign an offer of employment that gives up their right to sue if raped, is very telling.

Seems to me the employer must realize there is a problem that already exists if if a woman is expected to sign that!

Why not make men sign a statement warning them about committing rape?

Their focus seems to be on protecting their bisiness rather than protecting their female employees.

Personally, if I were asked to sign something like that, red flags would be flying all over the place and I wouldn't even consider taking employment there.

Why wouldn't the victim just sue the people who actually raped her? Why the company?

Pro-rape? Where do I sign up?
-Bill Clinton

The company has a responsibility to protect their employees, LOD.

The company has a responsibility to protect their employees, LOD.

#30 | Posted by Lisa

This is true, Lisa, but I find it difficult to imagine a situation where they would be in a position to stop a rape of an employee. It would basically have to take place at the workplace in view of people. Rapists tend to like privacy when they assault women.

"...it's like rape, you just have to sit back and enjoy it." R-Pack-not-much-wood....

Why wouldn't the victim just sue the people who actually raped her? Why the company?

#28 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

When you sue, you have to go for the deep pockets. It's all about money, not justice.

The company has a responsibility to protect their employees, LOD.

#30 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-12-03 11:45 AM

Why wouldn't the victim just sue the people who actually raped her? Why the company?

#28 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

When you sue, you have to go for the deep pockets. It's all about money, not justice.

#33 | Posted by Sniper
BS if it happens in the work place or when under contract by any company... Lots of times the companies in question will turn their backs on the small things and it builds up and up until someone receives and unwanted cock...

The company has a responsibility to protect their employees, LOD.

#30 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-12-03 11:45 AM

So someone gets raped by a janitor in the store room of a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart should pay up?

#34 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

that's a matter for the jury.

if walmart hired a convicted rapists and repeatedly ignored harrasment and sexual violations by the rapists and did nothing and forced the lady to work in the same room as the rapist and gets raped yes they should pay up

If walmart did all they could to prevent the rape, then they shouldnt pay up.

matter for the jury.

that's a matter for the jury.

if walmart hired a convicted rapists and repeatedly ignored harrasment and sexual violations by the rapists and did nothing and forced the lady to work in the same room as the rapist and gets raped yes they should pay up

#36 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-12-03 12:15 PM

Is that what happened in Haliburton case?

LOD:

Due to my Faith, I don't sue people. That said, yes...Walmart is responsible.

They are responsible for the people they hire!

Now, depending on the situation, the employer may not lose.

Just because one is sued, it doesn't automatically mean they are guilty.

But the victims right should be protected and these politicians are not affording that to victims of rape!

If walmart did all they could to prevent the rape, then they shouldnt pay up.

matter for the jury.

#36 | Posted by truthhurts

Right on. It's up to a jury of piers. Not corporate lobbyists who want to set a cap to protect the bottom line of corporations. Not saying, just saying...

If walmart did all they could to prevent the rape, then they shouldnt pay up.

maybe not as much as the previous scenario where they knowingly employed someone like that but regardless, there is still at least a minimal amount of "Employer Liability" attached to Walmart.

Some states allow "fellow employee" lawsuits and some do not. In the ones where they allow it, insurance companies will typically cover the fellow employee if sued over something (unless an illegal act like rape so it is meaningless in this case)

#37

Why would Haliburton even have a statement like that put in front of female employees if their hadn't been problems with the men they hired?

It's up to a jury of piers.

#39 | Posted by Chill at 2009-12-03 12:18 PM

The fact is that Haliburton would not hire the mercenaries if they thought they would not rape and kill given the opportunity, so yes, they are liable 100%.

Franken did a good thing.

But, there is a legal consistency here. Our workmens compensation system is designed to shed all responsibility by employers for workplace injury, regardless of their negligence or even deliberate conspiracy to put at risk or actually injure their employees.

The problem with so-called tort reform as advocated by the GOP is well illustrated by this episode. Corporations which arguably are responsible for the criminal acts of their subsidiaries are relieved of all responsibility.

God damn, Moder8, you really are a fucking idiot. First, you're not even talking about the right case - the Jamie Leigh Jones case is still pending and will be tried in a federal court in Houston. Thus, KBR has not been "relieved of all responsibility," in fact, it is likely they will be ordered to pay huge damages to this woman.

Second, you were likely referencing the Tracy Barker case, where a judge ruled that her contract required her to arbitrate the claim rather than try it in court. Even there, she was awarded $3,000,000.00, so again KBR was not "relieved of all responsibility."

I know that liberals like you enjoy living in a fantasy world where all things corporate and military are bad, but try to get your fucking facts straight. For once.

The above is why manufacturers are always sued, because its impossible to convict the employers in a court of law.

#39 | Posted by Chill at 2009-12-03 12:18 PM

12 angry docks?

LOL! Have you ever met a content dock?

Our workmens compensation system is designed to shed all responsibility by employers for workplace injury, regardless of their negligence or even deliberate conspiracy to put at risk or actually injure their employees.

Could you elaborate? What, specifically, about our workers compensation system makes it "designed" to shed all responsibility by employers?

Are you fucking retarded? Oh, you're Joe...never mind.

Posted by nullifidian at 2009-12-02 12:52 AM | Reply

Great response Moder8. Someone else's trolling is no excuse for your ignorance in this thread.

So someone gets raped by a janitor in the store room of a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart should pay up?

It's a legal doctrine known as respondeat superior. It's the same doctrine that lets the victim of an accident sue the truck driver's employer rather than the truck driver.

It's a legal doctrine known as respondeat superior. It's the same doctrine that lets the victim of an accident sue the truck driver's employer rather than the truck driver.

#51 | Posted by taxman at 2009-12-03 01:04 PM

Thanks!

#51 Not really. Nobody who rapes another is within the course and scope of their employment. Then, it should be a simple negligence question - i.e. whether the company knew about the sick fuck's predilection to rape and nevertheless put them in a position to be able to commit the crime.

This is covered by normal laws that already exist. If the bill pretends to make the employer financially responsible for the rape when it had no culpability and the act was not within course and scope, then it's a dumb law. If the law simply makes contractual waivers of employer negligence void (which would be dubious in the first instance), then I'd be alright with it.

But, I'm too lazy and don't care enough about the bill to even read the article. So, I guess I'm a shitheal.

#51. Most assuredly, both the driver and the company would be sued in your example. If the driver was on a "detour and frolick" - i.e. visiting a strip club during the day in the company truck - at the time of the accident, he arguable is not within the course and scope and his employer would not be liable.

Likewise, if he stopped the truck, raped some girl, company would not be liable on respondeat superior theory.

If you think about it real hard, the theory makes sense. If the employee is doing something in connection with making an employer money or allowing the employer to function, then the employer should be responsible for injuries caused.

If not, though, then it shouldn't be. Shit, the employer can't even get insurance to cover an employee's raping of someone due to the fact that it's an intentional act - so cost spreading arguments don't even make sense.

Nobody who rapes another is within the course and scope of their employment.

The underlying theory is that employers should not hire dangerous people and expose the public to a risk while the employee is under the employer's supervision. Thus, the doctrine could apply.

The underlying theory is that employers should not hire dangerous people and expose the public to a risk while the employee is under the employer's supervision. Thus, the doctrine could apply.

#56 | POSTED BY TAXMAN AT 2009-12-03 01:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG

You are wrong. If the employer has no reason to believe the person is dangerous, why should it be liable? If it does know the person is dangerous, and puts them in a position to hurt - then employer is liable on negligence theory, not respondeat superior.

If you hire a desk person who has clean record. They go out to a club at night, or at lunch, rape someone, you should be liable even though there was nothing indicating a problem and no priors?

That is really your position?

God save us all if most people think like you. There will be no further employers, and ex-cons or people who look funny will never be employed again.

Don't blame Taxman. It is both the Common Law and statutory law going back many hundreds of years. If your employee commits a crime or financially harms another while on the job you may be civilly liable.

Moder8 gets shit-kicked by Joe, and he comes back with that?

Horrible attempt Moder8. You got fucking owned.

Well, if the libs are for the "master/servant rule" above (which is key to their argument), then you'll have to say the all Democratic senators are for slavery. Logic hurts sometimes, don't it?

I know you are, but what am I?

-Moder8

#58. you must have flunked agency law in law school. one has to be in course and scope for respondeat superior to apply. one who rapes is not in course and scope - by definition. respondeat superior applies to none of this.

Logic hurts sometimes, don't it?

Posted by Dinsey at 2009-12-03 01:40 PM

Only you it seems.

Repugs are not pro-rape they're for amateur rape.

This is why Moder8 wound up as a defense attorney. My guess is that his clients frequently receive assistance from his local "innocence project."

#62 - But course and scope is expanded when employees are living within the employer's control, as in a remote location such as Afghanistan. There's also a strong reasonableness issue, as in the cases where the employer had notice that such activities were occurring, yet did little or nothing. Really, though, it's not an agency issue. It's an issue about control, responsibility, and reasonable measures to ensure the safety of workers in a remote location. There are all sort of issues sounding in both contracts and torts that would hold the employers responsible.

#66 agreed. but, it shouldn't be strict liability/respondeat superior.

Agreed, no strict liability. An employer cannot possibly prevent all harm. They fail if they are negligent in providing reasonable (under the circumstances) control, supervision, and safety for their employees. One would think that with all the possible ways to get hurt or killed in Afghanistan or Iraq, one's own coworkers would be far down on the threat list. C'est la vi.

#66 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-12-03 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag

Exactly. And some states have held that an employer can be responsible for sexual misconduct where the employee is permitted to touch/confine individuals.

I will actually leave the vicarious liability issues to the trial lawyers. That stuff is well below my level. Back to the world of tax and finance, where the real lawyers live ; )

I once had a tax professor joke that he always gave the same exam, year after year. It was the answers that always changed. Good luck with all this new tax crap.

Also, I believe Canada has held that churches can be held liable for kid-touching priests under the theory of vicarious liability. In that sense, I wish we were more like Canada.

Maybe Juanita Broaderick should sue the state of Arkansas, and the United States. After all, we hired the guy. We're all responsible.

And since Haliburton is a contractor of the federal government, it sounds like that's where the deep pockets are. Maybe the rape victims should file a class action lawsuit against the federal government. And if the libbies in Congress demur, that must mean they're Pro-Rape too.

In fact, that's what they should do. Just like a general contractor can be sued for the actions of sub-contractors, so should the federal government be on the hook for every single rape committed by every single employee of every single company that accepts federal funds. College student raped on campus? Same goes there.

This could get expensive! But as long as the Chinese are willing to bankroll every stupid decision this president and Congress makes, the money's free!

Let's see now:

Joe : Rightwinger
101Chairborne: Rightwinger
Somoco: Rightwinger

LOL! I own you guys. Dance. (And my earlier post happens to be 100% correct.)

#74. My posts had to do with how the law stands, and why you'd have to be a fucktard to make employers strictly liable for intentional crimes of employees that were not in course and scope of employment.

I'm assuming that, if you are an attorney, you probably practice criminal law because of your obvious deficiencies in understanding the basics and history of agency law. Keep plugging away though...

Delusional doesn't begin to cut it, limpwrist. Joe twisted you in knots and left you standing there dumbfounded.
Or have you forgotten? Let me point you to post #45.

Ooooooh, I bet that still hurts, huh?

Moder8 gets shit-kicked by Joe, and he comes back with that?

Horrible attempt Moder8. You got fucking owned.

As usual 101chairborn offers no opinion at all, only his usual insults and foul mouthed perverted logic. A real fine spokesman for all right wing idiots.

"Repub Senators: We're Not Pro-Rape"

Right?!

They also say they are advocates for property rights --- that is until they steal someone's property for their campaign.

They also say they are for "States Rights" ----- that is right up the point where a state does something they don't approve of, then its all about federal intervention.

They also say they are pro family ------ until they can makes some political hey out of exploiting a brain dead woman and her family for political points.

They also say they are all for personal freedoms ---- right up to when someone is partaking in a freedom they don't like.

They also say they live by the Ten Commandments ----- right t up to the pont they get busted breaking one of those commandments, then its all about secular law and that their actions weren't "illegal".

And so on and so on and so on!

Franken, don't you move a muscle.!!!

They made their bed, let them lay in it.

my earlier post happens to be 100% correct

What a line of crap. I'll wait for you to show how "this episode" demonstrates that "corporations which arguably are responsible for the criminal acts of their subsidiaries are relieved of all responsibility."

So someone gets raped by a janitor in the store room of a Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart should pay up?

#34 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

WalMart employees aren't sent overseas to a war zone and required to live with their co-workers in tight quarters in a country with few available women.

Joe are you really that stupid?

Here, I'll post it for you again:

"Don't blame Taxman. It is both the Common Law and statutory law going back many hundreds of years. If your employee commits a crime or financially harms another while on the job you may be civilly liable."

(Again, is it really an insult to point out how stupid rightwingers are when they display it so prominently?)

WalMart employees aren't sent overseas to a war zone and required to live with their co-workers in tight quarters in a country with few available women.

#81 | Posted by Timex at 2009-12-03 03:33 PM | Reply

So you're against women in the military too, cool.

I don't see the logic in saying the Haliburton is responsible, but that the federal government isn't. It was the feds that contracted the job in the first place.

The GOP is certainly not in favor of rape.
They're just indifferent to it. How else
do you explain their position that a victim
of rape should not be able to get an abortion?

#10 | Posted by tiger150 at 2009-12-03 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Liberals are certainly not in favor of murder.
They're just indifferent to it. How else
do you explain their position that a child
created through sexual intercourse not have
the right to survive?

"The GOP is certainly not in favor of rape.They're just indifferent to it. How elsedo you explain their position that a victimof rape should not be able to get an abortion"

First of all, being indifferent (don't care) if women get raped is most certainly inline with pro rape mentalities, IMO. If you know it happens in the work place and don't do what it takes to prevent it, you're just as guilty!

Secondly.... Do you honestly think that if a pregnancy results from a rape and she aborts, that the rape will be erased from her mind?? That she'll suddenly be emotionally healed??

I'll tell you from experience that the memories of being raped last a heck of a lot longer than nine months....with or without a pregnancy developing!!

How many times do you hear of women regretting they had an abortion? Know why?? Because part of the reason is because you should never make a decision based on emotion. It always ends up being the wrong decision.

There are options, agencies, help from many avenues for women who are rape victims.

But this does not reduce the importance of employers enusring the safety of their female employees and being held responsible if they fail to do so!!!

Bravo! I hope for more of the same from the Frankenator.

Here, I'll post it for you again:

As is clear from my posts, that isn't the comment I refuted. See #45 and either explain yourself or STFU.

ok i read the fucking legislation. all he does is say that you can force employee to arbitrate a claim based on sexual harassment.

i think that's fine, and is probably a good idea. Has nothing to do with respondeat superior. Doesn't change my opinion that Moder8 probably flunked agency.

What it has to do with "pro-rape" is beyond me.

"can't" force employee to arbitrate

Lets see...Financial institution bail out, Auto manufacturer bail out, Housing bail out, a trillion plus dollar deficit, and the Dems think the Republicans support rape?

Franken has to be getting a good laugh out of this one. I know I am.

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Doc,

If Franken doesn't come out and explain it to these people attacking the Congressmen our of ignorance and political hackery, then Franken is just as guilty as they are of being political hack and will appear weak and stupid. He deserves to lose the next election. If he's that sure of the bill he introduced, he should defned it by explaining it.

Joe,

Here is one example: A mining equipment manufacturer makes tractors for coal extraction through narrow coal seams. They are designed with cages to protect the operator. The coal company removes the cages and a worker losses his skull, but survives in a wheelchair with a plate and brain damage. The coal company has used the equipment manufacturers factory servce and as a result has received numerous warnings not to use the equipment without the safety cages.

The wheelchair bound plantiff and his lawyer sue the mining equipment manufacturer for the injury because workmen's compensation law prevents them from suing his blatently irresponsible employer. This is why so many manufacturers are sued in this country. The only consequence to the employer is his workman comp insurance premium might be raised.

#93 Nutjob speaks the truth! Workers comp is to protect the employer.

#93 Nutjob speaks the truth! Workers comp is to protect the employer.

#94 | Posted by somoco

It more protects the State from having to pick up the claim.

If Franken doesn't come out and explain it to these people attacking the Congressmen our of ignorance and political hackery, then Franken is just as guilty as they are of being political hack and will appear weak and stupid.

I think you're wrong. I have a hunch this will resonate with his constituency. And this whole thing where he gets 30 Republicans voting to allow rape, that really resonates with his constituency.

All politics is "hackery." Some are better at it than others; Franken appears to be one of better ones. His first piece of legislation has called out the GOP as pro-rape goons and thugs, which many think they are, especially after incidents like the ones his legislation is designed to prevent.

The employer-employee contract signed by the parties allows the woman with a rape complaint to pursue the matter in ARBITRATION.

They still get their day in court--just no jury.

They still get an attorney to advocate for them, evidence presented, witnesses heard and testimony given under oath.

The Arbitrator is usually a judge--some retired or attorneys who specialize in arbitrations.

Arbitration Clauses are practically standard in every employment contract. They also are included in Mortgage contracts, construction contracts, real estate contracts, even your auto insurance contract under the terms of Uninsured Motorist Coverage--you name it.

Franken's bill is ridiculous on it's face.

And there can still be criminal charges filed against an alleged rapist--in the proper criminal court.

The Arbitration Clause only addresses matters under civilian court law--ie money damages being the verdict.

They are not pro-rape!

What is wrong with people???

Why are they limiting women at all Murph?????

I find this appalling!

What is wrong with people who defend those who want to limit womens' rights????

And there can still be criminal charges filed against an alleged rapist--in the proper criminal court.

And which court is that, which has jurisdiction over United States contract employees in Iraq?

Idiot.

They still get their day in court--just no jury.

One little problem with your so-called plan: The rapist never sees a day in court.

Just because you're fine with having been raped doesn't mean the rest of us are. But I do applaud your resiliency and I encourage you to advocate for other victims in your community.

Holy... either I had too much coffee or not enough. I will calm down now.

Tiny minds are easily amused.
#25 | Posted by vernon |Flag: Q.E.D.

Once again I see several liberals displaying plenty of intellectual dishonesty here. Guys, when you state that republicans are pro-rape and mean it, you show immense ignorance and stupidity.

"Once again I see several liberals displaying plenty of intellectual dishonesty here. Guys, when you state that republicans are pro-rape and mean it, you show immense ignorance and stupidity."

Awwww. Isn't that sad? You rtards have been calling liberals traitors, appeasers, commies, baby-killers, etc., for decades. What goes around comes around.

p.s. Republicans are pro-rape.

Awwww. Isn't that sad? You rtards have been calling liberals traitors, appeasers, commies, baby-killers, etc., for decades. What goes around comes around.-Nullifidian

That's because some on the left are those things. Even those on the extreme right do not advocate rape. It's ridiculous and stupid to even insinuate it is so. If you really believe what you say then it is a fact that you are at a level of intelligence just above retarded.

You say what comes around goes around and that's fine. But at least do it on an issue where some truth can be found in it. The only people who support rape are rapists, and they come from every political background there is.

Awwww. Isn't that sad? You rtards have been calling liberals traitors, appeasers, commies, baby-killers, etc., for decades. What goes around comes around.-Nullifidian

That's because some on the left are those things. #106 | Posted by everlong

Exactly! Teabaggers stands.

Exactly! Teabaggers stands.

#107 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

So, Doc, you actually believe that republicans support rape? As I said, only rapists support rape and they come from all political backgrounds. If there were even an ounce of truth or logic to your claims I wouldn't say anything. But the fact is, there is no basis at all for what you are saying. It's not even funny if it is supposed to be a joke. I've only heard a couple of people pull off a rape joke and George Carlin was one of them. I hardly think you rate up to Carlin's standards.

I was referring to the term "Teabaggers."

Of course Republicans don't "support" rape, any more than Democrats were "against our troops." Petty partisan political machinations in congressional voting -- no surprise there. Al Franken just found a way to piss off the Republicans and the more they whine about it the sillier they look.

As I recall, it's been something of a GOP favorite tactic the last few go-arounds to point to a candidate's vote on a procedural question, or a bill burdened by an offensive amendment, and use that to misrepresent the actual views of their opponents.

It's just turn-around. No big deal.

I notice, however, Everlong, that you're quite comfortable with the statement that "calling liberals traitors, appeasers, commies, baby-killers, etc.," is okay because "some on the left are those things" (my emphasis).

By your line of reasoning, then, it's okay if I say, "Republicans favor murdering doctors who perform legal abortions, advocate assassinating the President of the United States, think Obama's an African-born Muslim who's a communist, agrees with traitors (who favor secession), and believes in angels and the Rapture" because some do.

Doc, you should notice that I only said some are those things. I never said that it would be fair of me to include everyone on the left of being those things. However, saying that even one person on the right supports rape is ridiculous. Unless that person is an actual rapist.

Do Republicans support rape? That is a tough one.

On a conscious level, of course Republicans oppose allowing one person to force themselves sexually upon another. The problem is, many of these same Republicans oppose policies (such as the one authored by Senator Franken) which exert pressure on corporations to actively see to it that rape does not occur by employees. So, in an indirect way, yes Republicans do support rape. (If they don't like it, they should support Senator Franken in this endeavor.)

That's bullshit, Moder8, and you know it. They are against employers being held responsible for rape if it happens to one of their employees. There is a huge difference between that and actually advocating rape.

Personally, I believe it should be based on a case by case account. In some cases there is going to be absolutely no way that an employer could have prevented the rape of someone. In others, liability may be able to be shown. It shouldn't just be so cut and dry. Saying that an employer is responsible for any rape that may happen to one of its employees. In some cases there is just no way that there will have been any way of them doing something about it.

Everlong: It is handled on a case by case basis. That is what the court system is for. The purpose of this law is so that the matter can get into the court to begin with. What the 30 Republicans want is for the case to never even be allowed into the court in the first place. If you genuinely believe that these matters should be handled on a case by case basis, then if you are intellectually honest you probably also support the Franken bill.

Well, then I absolutely do support it. However, I find it hard to believe that there are many cases at all that happen in which the employer is liable. But, if they are then they should pay.

And actually I agree with you on that point. I doubt there are very many cases at all where an employer actually should be held financially responsible for an employee committing rape or being raped.

Doc, you should notice that I only said some are those things.
#111 | Posted by everlong

Well, that's the point, isn't it? You said that as a way of excusing the Right's branding "liberals traitors, appeasers, commies, baby-killers, etc., for decades" (Null's comment that prompted your response).

If you excuse pars pro toto from the Right, then to retain any semblance of being honest or fair you have to accept it from the Left, no?

Will the foul mouthed comedian Senator now introduce an amendment to let someone sue the federal govmt, if they are raped by a government employee? Didn't think so.

The purpose of this law is so that the matter can get into the court to begin with.

Wrong, the purpose of this bill is to enable the trial lawyers donations to big Al.

No Midtown. You are lying. Unless you are also saying that Republicans oppose the bill due to corporate donations to the GOP. Which, by the way, obviously is the case.

Sounds like these Republicans bought into the Richard Perle philosphy of "just lay back and enjoy it."

If you excuse pars pro toto from the Right, then to retain any semblance of being honest or fair you have to accept it from the Left, no?

#117 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I don't know how you are missing the point on this. We are talking about saying that republicans advocate rape. And I did say that it was fair to say that some on the right are homophobic or whatever, because some are. But no one, unless they are a rapist, supports rape. So, it is completely unfair to say that even some on the right support rape.

I also said that some on the left are the things that were stated. But I never said that it was fair to include the entire left on that. So, I do accept that it is fair to say that some on the right believe certain things. I do not accept that some on the right advocate raping someone.

Republicans For Rape sounds good to me. A few individuals deny they're for individuals raping other individuals, but none oppose corporate rape. You know - screwing the nation. herm

Too funny, Reads like a joke.
When given the choice between protecting the right of rape victims vs. their corporate buddies, they choose to vote in favor of their corporate buddies. Now they want the people that voted to help rape victims to say that voting no did not matter. The GOP 30 wants them to say what, their vote against rape victims was really a vote to help them.
I still cannot believe they voted against it, they should be reminded of their vote every day. I think about it when my mind wonders from time to time, and you know what, the same bewilderment takes over overtime. I cannot believe 30 people voted to protect corporate America over rape victims.

If there ever was an argument to show that the GOP does not care about the average working American, this is it. I could not have fabricated a more extreme and disgusting case. I never though they could be so heartless, at the very least I would I figured that political self-preservation would have made them to the right thing. But no, the GOP senators give lip service about wanting to help the average American, but when its time to vote, what do they do? The vote for Corporate, and against rape victims, they vote for tax cuts for the rich. They are a disgrace of epic proportion. These 30 GOP senators will be forever remembered by me as the GOP Rape Caucus

Al Franken just found a way to piss off the Republicans and the more they whine about it the sillier they look.

#109 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Wrong.

The longer Franken strings this along the more people see him as a political hack. You just see it another way because you're a partisan and care little for Republicans. I can understand why you would think that way, but lets just call a spade a spade, ok?

I can understand why you would think that way, but lets just call a spade a spade, ok?

Posted by Eddie

Ok, you're a fool.

Ok, you're a fool.

#126 | Posted by nullifidian

posted by a moron...

LOL!!!

spade a spade. three quarters of the republicans senators. all male.... support rape.. period

spade a spade. three quarters of the republicans senators. all male.... support rape.. period

#128 | Posted by Georgeisadrunk at 2009-12-04 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Another Political Hack!

It's ok.

Doc,

This is why I don't EVER bid on government contracts. Mostly because it's too costly and I don't like charging the government 4 times the real price.

Now this stupid amendment will cause contractors to have to raise their prices even more. This is the kind of bullshit what's driving the cost of running government through the roof.

The people of Minnesota are picking up on this shit, but the bad thing is that they have to wait so long to get the dumbass out of office. Maybe they should start the recall process.

eddie, we watch you folks, torture is good!!! rape is better!!! go republicans

"Repub Senators:We're Not Pro-Rape"

This is True!!! Republican Senators are not Pro Rape...at least as far as the individual is concerned...they're actually only "Pro Rape" as far as the American public and voters are concerned...this they've proven time and again!!!

#83 | Posted by 101Chairborne

I'm sure the military has a clear way of dealing with rape, assault, and sexual harassment accusations which, I'd imagine, include mandatory investigation and subsequent prosecution if warranted by evidence and testimony.

Perhaps U.S. contractors in foreign lands should be required to have these kinds of cases investigated and prosecuted under U.S. Civil Code on a mandatory basis.