Republican gang rape party

[Boota]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/10/16/notes101609.DTL

10 Republicans voted against allowing Halliburton and other defense contractors to be sued over gang raping employees. Only 10. Talk about dodging a bullet, McCain is one of the 30 who voted to allow gang rape to go unpunished.

 

[jomar]

Fuckers.

 

[Belegon]

from: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...fm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308#position

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 )
Vote Number: 308 Vote Date: October 6, 2009, 04:37 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
Vote Counts: YEAs 68
NAYs 30
Not Voting 2


Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---68
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---30
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 2
Byrd (D-WV)
Specter (D-PA)

 

[3113]

McCain is one of the 30 who voted to allow gang rape to go unpunished.

I'm sure he would have been for it if it had involved prison camp techniques ...oh, wait, they locked the woman up in a box when she talked to her bosses about the rape, didn't they?

You know, I once thought McCain had principles.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm truely sorry to see both Oregon Dems voted to approve this. Wyden has long been an idiot. The other guy is new and not very smart either. Both will be unemployed after the next election

My God! This is one of the most liberal Democratic States in the Union. What the Fuck?

 

[Belegon]

I'm truely sorry to see both Oregon Dems voted to approve this. Wyden has long been an idiot. The other guy is new and not very smart either. Both will be unemployed after the next election

My God! This is one of the most liberal Democratic States in the Union. What the Fuck?

I really think you are missing the point, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not.

This is not an isolated incident. These companies have a history of using these clauses, which are not intended to protect criminal activity but address things like allegations of unpaid overtime, to protect themselves from negative consequences of their own negligence.

Ah hell, Jon Stewart said it better. Go look up the other nights Daily Show clips.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I really think you are missing the point, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not.

This is not an isolated incident. These companies have a history of using these clauses, which are not intended to protect criminal activity but address things like allegations of unpaid overtime, to protect themselves from negative consequences of their own negligence.

Ah hell, Jon Stewart said it better. Go look up the other nights Daily Show clips.

No, I understood the point. What I don't understand is - with Dick Cnaney out of office and sidelined, why are they still protecting Haliburton with their over billings, excessive contracts and criminal activities?

But I also pissed that the two Oregon Democrats voted yes on this issue. That totally grinds my teeth.

 

[Belegon]

No, I understood the point. What I don't understand is - with Dick Cnaney out of office and sidelined, why are they still protecting Haliburton with their over billings, excessive contracts and criminal activities?

But I also pissed that the two Oregon Democrats voted yes on this issue. That totally grinds my teeth.

A "yea" vote prohibits companies using these clauses to protect themselves from receiving federal funds.

A "nay" vote protects Halliburton.


Both Oregon representatives voted to prohibit companies that do not clarify that the binding arbitration clause does not apply to criminal activity from receiving Federal contracts.

Your teeth-grinding seems to be based on a presupposition that a yea vote was the one that would protect KBR (who is actually no longer a direct part of Halliburton.)

 

[trysail]

I don't have a dog in this fight and have no intention of entering one. Unless you read Robert Caro's book, you're probably not aware of the corrupt relationship between Brown & Root and Lyndon Johnson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_&_Root :

... Brown & Root was founded in Texas in 1919 by two brothers, George R. Brown and Herman Brown, with money provided by their brother-in-law, Daniel Root. The company began its operations by building roads in Texas.

One of its first large-scale projects, according to the book Cadillac Desert, was building a dam on the Texas Colorado River near Austin during the Depression years. For assistance in federal payments, the company turned to the local Congressman, Lyndon B. Johnson. Brown & Root was the principal source of campaign funds for Johnson's initial run for Congress in 1937, in return for persuading the Bureau of Reclamation to change its rules against paying for a dam on land the federal government did not own, a decision that had to go all the way to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, according to Robert A. Caro's book The Path to Power. After other very profitable construction projects for the federal government, Brown & Root gave massive sums of cash for Johnson's first run for the U.S. Senate in 1941. Brown and Root reportedly violated IRS rules over campaign contributions, largely in charging off its donations as deductible company expenses, according to Caro. A subsequent IRS investigation threatened to bring criminal charges of illegal campaign donations against Brown & Root, as well as Johnson and others. Roosevelt himself told the IRS to back off and allowed Brown and Root to settle for pennies on the dollar.

During World War II, Brown & Root built the Naval Air Station Corpus Christi and its subsidiary Brown Shipbuilding produced a series of warships for the U.S. Government.

In 1947, Brown & Root built one of the world's first offshore oil platforms.

According to Tracy Kidder's Pulitzer Prize-winning book Mountains Beyond Mountains, Brown & Root was a contractor in the Péligre Dam project. The project was designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and financed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States...

 

[Belegon]

I don't have a dog in this fight and have no intention of entering one. Unless you read Robert Caro's book, you're probably not aware of the corrupt relationship between Brown & Root and Lyndon Johnson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_&_Root :

I fail to see the relevance, unless it is simply pointing out that this is not the first time improper relationships have existed between corporations and members of the government. Which certainly does not mean that we should not combat such corruption in the present.

...and dude, just when are you going to expand the number of people willing to talk to you by getting rid of your garish and oversized font choice? I often miss what you have to say because I have you on ignore... not because of your opinions, but because your method of presentation is jarring and bothers me.

Just sayin. That is your personal choice to make.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

A "yea" vote prohibits companies using these clauses to protect themselves from receiving federal funds.

A "nay" vote protects Halliburton.


Both Oregon representatives voted to prohibit companies that do not clarify that the binding arbitration clause does not apply to criminal activity from receiving Federal contracts.

Your teeth-grinding seems to be based on a presupposition that a yea vote was the one that would protect KBR (who is actually no longer a direct part of Halliburton.)

Did I misread that? I read it to mean just the opposite.

 

[Belegon]

Did I misread that? I read it to mean just the opposite.

That's what I thought. Your actual content seemed to say so, it was just a misunderstanding of the data that was off base.

The most interesting thing to me was that a number of the Senators who voted nay defended their vote by saying that they didn't believe they should interfer in the internal affairs of companies.

I'm sorry, but giving out no-bid contracts is most definitely interference. Also, giving contracts to these companies could be argued as interfering in the internal affairs of their competitors as well.

Simply put, it is not possible for the government to stay out of the business of the businesses that exist because of the government.

Their argument is circular and entirely without merit.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Here's a link to the Daily Show takedown of this vote.

 

[DeeZire]

I wonder how Fox News is handling this? I went to their website and googled Halliburton. The last entry was from 2007. I also googled "gang rape", "KBR", and Al Franken, but got nothin' relating to this story.

 

[Liar]

And the award for most contetious political thread title goes to...

(hey, doesn't mean it isn't true though, just sayin')

The gang rape thing aside, what I found most stunning was the arguments against the amendment. I heard one of the senators who voted Nay saying that "Government should not dictate what goes into private contracts".

Which of course would be true, if...

a) ...what goes into the private contract wasn't that closely linked to serious criminal activity. A felony is a felony is a felony, and noone should have the right to sign off responibility for a felony with fine print.

and more importantly

b) ...one part of said contract wasn't THE GOVERNMENT. This was an amendment to an appropriation bill, right? Dealing with PUBLIC CONTRACTS. Of bloody course the government should dictate what goes into it's own contracts.

WTF?

 

[DeeZire]

...I heard one of the senators who voted Nay saying that "Government should not dictate what goes into private contracts".....

Aren't these the same senators who were aghast that Obama was unable to alter the private contracts of the Wall Street CEOs who benefitted from the bailout? The hypocrisy here is absolutely stunning. No wonder the AH Right Wing fanboys are afraid to show their faces in this thread (except for Trysail, who prefers to non-comment by proxy.)

 

[3113]

Aren't these the same senators who were aghast that Obama was unable to alter the private contracts of the Wall Street CEOs who benefitted from the bailout? The hypocrisy here is absolutely stunning. No wonder the AH Right Wing fanboys are afraid to show their faces in this thread (except for Trysail, who prefers to non-comment by proxy.)

Not to mention they were the same senators who were outraged that public tax money was going to "corrupt" ACORN. Public tax dollars, they insisted, should never fund anything that hints of illegal activity.

And before we condemn the right-wing fanboys here, we should note that there were plenty of Republicans that voted "yes" on the bill.

 

[DeeZire]

And before we condemn the right-wing fanboys here, we should note that there were plenty of Republicans that voted "yes" on the bill.

My apologies. 1 out of 4 Rs voted in favor of the bill, which means only 3 out of 4 are hypocrites.

 

[JackLuis]

My apologies. 1 out of 4 Rs voted in favor of the bill, which means only 3 out of 4 are hypocrites.

Only on this one subject. ALL of them are hypocrites (R's and D's), IMHO.

 

[DeeZire]

Only on this one subject. ALL of them are hypocrites (R's and D's), IMHO.

One could say that pragmatism is the practice of engaging in sensible hypocrisy, but to dismiss the R's blatant hypocrisy by saying they all do it seems a bit... hypocritical.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This is terrible, yes. It demonstrates that both parties have their pet groups that they will protect, right or wrong. Neither party is innocent. Why do you think I refused to vote for a major party last election? Because I'm done with the major parties, that's why. I'm fed up with their hypocrisy. Both sides of the aisle. The only hope for America is a victorious third party majority in Congress and a victorious third-party President at the same time at this point in our history. Being a pessimist, I don't see that happening.

 

[JackLuis]

One could say that pragmatism is the practice of engaging in sensible hypocrisy, but to dismiss the R's blatant hypocrisy by saying they all do it seems a bit... hypocritical.

Didn't mean to dismiss their hypocrisy, just pointed out that inside the beltway, hypocrisy is the order of the day. That way you can take money from both sides and maximize your power.

 

[Huckleman2000]

This is terrible, yes. It demonstrates that both parties have their pet groups that they will protect, right or wrong. Neither party is innocent. Why do you think I refused to vote for a major party last election? Because I'm done with the major parties, that's why. I'm fed up with their hypocrisy. Both sides of the aisle. The only hope for America is a victorious third party majority in Congress and a victorious third-party President at the same time at this point in our history. Being a pessimist, I don't see that happening.

How does this demonstrate anything about "both parties"? Are gang-rape victims a "pet group"?
What the fuck are you defending in this?

 

[JackLuis]

How does this demonstrate anything about "both parties"? Are gang-rape victims a "pet group"?
What the fuck are you defending in this?

I think Haliburton-KBR was the pets he was talking about.

 

[Liar]

This is terrible, yes. It demonstrates that both parties have their pet groups that they will protect, right or wrong.

In this case, I don't think a pet group per se (like Haliburton) is what's on the Gang of Thirty's mind. Not that it isn't a factor. Of course3 it is.

The major pet issue is rather mandatory opposition against anything the Dempocratic party proposes. And for some, specific opposition against Al Franken.