Republicans for Rape

[where]

I need to go and soak my nuts in vinegar now...

bwahahahahha! don't forget to bake 'em!

What does Conker mean to you?

The only Conker I know is this one. From a game. Kinda vile. And British:

http://mundorare.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/art-conker-i-want-you.jpg

it's a game british kids play with horse chestnut seeds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

there are all kinds of ways to make your conkers harder like pickling in vinegar and baking them.

 

[Recidiva]

Too bad she didn't sign a contract guaranteeing a half million dollar bonus, based on her performance from two years back.

We must always remember, social contracts are not binding in court.

Oh, hindsight. So fickle.

 

[Recidiva]

bwahahahahha! don't forget to bake 'em!




it's a game british kids play with horse chestnut seeds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

there are all kinds of ways to make your conkers harder like pickling in vinegar and baking them.

So this is just throwing nuts at each other?

Is this another euphemism for gang rape?

ETA: Thanks for the link. Adorable. "Such hardening is however usually regarded as cheating. At the British Junior Conkers Championships on the Isle of Wight in October 2005, contestants were banned from bringing their own conkers due to fears that they might harden them."

 

[where]

So this is just throwing nuts at each other?

Is this another euphemism for gang rape?

ETA: Thanks for the link. Adorable. "Such hardening is however usually regarded as cheating. At the British Junior Conkers Championships on the Isle of Wight in October 2005, contestants were banned from bringing their own conkers due to fears that they might harden them."

you don't throw them. you skewer them and thread them on string. one kid holds one and the other bashes it with his or her own and then they just take turns until one is decimated. you count how many hits you give and then add them up so if you hit ten conkers ten time then yours is a hundreder. some variations also amalgamated scores from smashed conkers as well.

and hardenting them isnt cheating, it's applying science and technology. it's like saying a marathon runner is cheating for training every day.

not sure how it relates to gang rape, my comment was more aimed at sean and vett

 

[Recidiva]

you don't throw them. you skewer them and thread them on string. one kid holds one and the other bashes it with his or her own and then they just take turns until one is decimated. you count how many hits you give and then add them up so if you hit ten conkers ten time then yours is a hundreder. some variations also amalgamated scores from smashed conkers as well.

and hardenting them isnt cheating, it's applying science and technology. it's like saying a marathon runner is cheating for training every day.

not sure how it relates to gang rape, my comment was more aimed at sean and vett

Hundreder Cute.

"Throwing nuts at each other" was the euphemism thing. It was more aimed at St. Peter. Slinging works too.

 

[kbate]

Calling it Republicans for Rape is pretty much plain Bullshite.

The amendment is a giant power grab for the government - forcing every company which wishes to do business with the government - to open itself to a barrage of "negligent hiring" lawsuits, "Improper promotion" lawsuits" and other lawsuits based on "failure to fill quotas based on colour/sex/race/whatever".

It's a lawyer's dream, going far beyond the intended purpose of removing company policy such as those that KBR abused.

Had it simply listed the felonious articles, "sexual assault, assault and battery, and sexual harrassment" - the vote would have been different.

 

[where]

Hundreder Cute.

"Throwing nuts at each other" was the euphemism thing. It was more aimed at St. Peter. Slinging works too.

my best one was a twohundredand sixtyfiver

 

[Powertone]

Al Franken.

Lol.

Funny.

Ulaven_Demorte

Lol.

Funny

Pompous

Partisan Hack

 

[Recidiva]

Calling it Republicans for Rape is pretty much plain Bullshite.

The amendment is a giant power grab for the government - forcing every company which wishes to do business with the government - to open itself to a barrage of "negligent hiring" lawsuits, "Improper promotion" lawsuits" and other lawsuits based on "failure to fill quotas based on colour/sex/race/whatever".

It's a lawyer's dream, going far beyond the intended purpose of removing company policy such as those that KBR abused.

Had it simply listed the felonious articles, "sexual assault, assault and battery, and sexual harrassment" - the vote would have been different.

I don't understand ever signing away a right to sue over something.

To specify that you CAN'T sue over something opens up a whole new book of possible abuses. Like this one.

Regardless that I would never sign a contract with that proviso "Hey, what's this part about...rape? Please? Fuck that." This is not an issue where the individual should get to decide whether or not getting a fat paycheck or any paycheck means you have to sign something with that in it. Ever.

Anybody here think they are being represented well if they sign away the right to sue over gang rape? Dismemberment? Poisoning?

So respectfully...*big wet raspberry*

This is not about lawyers, it's not about government power grab, it's about giving power back to the individual. And in this case, the argument is reprehensible, to dismiss the individual somehow as if she, or other people in her situation, don't exist, and shouldn't be able to hire a lawyer.

 

[Powertone]

It's a lawyer's dream, going far beyond the intended purpose of removing company policy such as those that KBR abused.

actually it's another gift from the democrats to trial lawyers who are still clinking champagne glasses that there'll never be tort reform as long as Team Obama is drafting legislation for "free" healthcare.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I don't understand ever signing away a right to sue over something.

To specify that you CAN'T sue over something opens up a whole new book of possible abuses. Like this one.

Regardless that I would never sign a contract with that proviso "Hey, what's this part about...rape? Please? Fuck that." This is not an issue where the individual should get to decide whether or not getting a fat paycheck or any paycheck means you have to sign something with that in it. Ever.

Anybody here think they are being represented well if they sign away the right to sue over gang rape? Dismemberment? Poisoning?

So respectfully...*big wet raspberry*

This is not about lawyers, it's not about government power grab, it's about giving power back to the individual. And in this case, the argument is reprehensible, to dismiss the individual somehow as if she, or other people in her situation, don't exist, and shouldn't be able to hire a lawyer.

They aren't signing away anything. They are agreeing to use arbitration instead of litigation to settle any dispute.

You've done the same thing if you have a credit card, a mortgage, a stock brokerage account, etc...

 

[JohnnySavage]

actually it's another gift from the democrats to trial lawyers who are still clinking champagne glasses that there'll never be tort reform as long as Team Obama is drafting legislation for "free" healthcare.

Yea, because no lawyers are involved in arbitration.

Sometimes I think you try to be dumb.

 

[Recidiva]

They aren't signing away anything. They are agreeing to use arbitration instead of litigation to settle any dispute.

You've done the same thing if you have a credit card, a mortgage, a stock brokerage account, etc...

My credit card, mortgage and stock brokerage accounts don't have a rape clause. I hope.

Agreeing to arbitrate "Hey, you defaulted on a payment" is different from agreeing to arbitrate "Several men gang raped me and then locked me in a container unit when I was going to report it."

There's a difference between defaulting on a contract and being violently assaulted.

 

[JohnnySavage]

My credit card, mortgage and stock brokerage accounts don't have a rape clause. I hope.

Agreeing to arbitrate "Hey, you defaulted on a payment" is different from agreeing to arbitrate "Several men gang raped me and then locked me in a container unit when I was going to report it."

There's a difference between defaulting on a contract and being violently assaulted.

It's not about rape...

never mind, I give up.

 

[Recidiva]

It's not about rape...

never mind, I give up.

And for the woman pressing suit. Is it about rape for her? Because that matters.

Did she manage this whole thing as a wily plan to force a corporation to be so fucked up that she cleverly exposed their fuckuppedness? If they weren't so fucked up in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue.

You can't dismiss the victim of a crime, or blame them that they accuse the criminals.

Making this about "the government" is as stupid as making slavery about "government economic policy."

You don't get to decide what it's about for the victim of the policy.

 

[kbate]

I don't understand ever signing away a right to sue over something.

To specify that you CAN'T sue over something opens up a whole new book of possible abuses. Like this one.

Regardless that I would never sign a contract with that proviso "Hey, what's this part about...rape? Please? Fuck that." This is not an issue where the individual should get to decide whether or not getting a fat paycheck or any paycheck means you have to sign something with that in it. Ever.

Anybody here think they are being represented well if they sign away the right to sue over gang rape? Dismemberment? Poisoning?

So respectfully...*big wet raspberry*

This is not about lawyers, it's not about government power grab, it's about giving power back to the individual. And in this case, the argument is reprehensible, to dismiss the individual somehow as if she, or other people in her situation, don't exist, and shouldn't be able to hire a lawyer.

The law is not about gang rape. It is actually about the last three clauses, about hiring, supervision and retention.

You cannot be fired for cause once this law is in place - or the government can withhold payment on all contracts - until your court case for wrongful firing is settled. (read - legal fees must be paid)

If you disagree with a promotion - your company cannot be paid for government work - until you have been through court, appeals and (legal fees are paid).

If your son isn't hired to be your helper, that clause you signed demanding arbitration before court becomes meaningless - and the company has no recourse - as it's government contract is held up until) a. they hire your son, or b. they win/lose a court case (and pay legal fees).

This is an overreaching law - gone far beyond the stated intent of protecting people from signing away legal rights.

They could as easily have limited the scope of this amendment and nearly received 100% support, but they chose to open the doors to a flood of lawsuits based on nearly any employee complaint - and use the huge club of government contract payment as their enforcement tool.

They also wrote it as they did - to force the more conservative republicans to vote against it and thus, open themselves to being "Pro-Rape".

The KBR case against arbitration is extreme. This amendment covers common things that should be first handled by in-company arbitration rather than courts and clubs.

 

[Recidiva]

The law is not about gang rape. It is actually about the last three clauses, about hiring, supervision and retention.

You cannot be fired for cause once this law is in place - or the government can withhold payment on all contracts - until your court case for wrongful firing is settled. (read - legal fees must be paid)

If you disagree with a promotion - your company cannot be paid for government work - until you have been through court, appeals and (legal fees are paid).

If your son isn't hired to be your helper, that clause you signed demanding arbitration before court becomes meaningless - and the company has no recourse - as it's government contract is held up until) a. they hire your son, or b. they win/lose a court case (and pay legal fees).

This is an overreaching law - gone far beyond the stated intent of protecting people from signing away legal rights.

They could as easily have limited the scope of this amendment and nearly received 100% support, but they chose to open the doors to a flood of lawsuits based on nearly any employee complaint - and use the huge club of government contract payment as their enforcement tool.

They also wrote it as they did - to force the more conservative republicans to vote against it and thus, open themselves to being "Pro-Rape".

The employees certainly thought they could get away with it. THEY knew the policy.

Let the courts decide. Don't behave as if pressing suit is the same as winning it.

And certainly don't behave as if the right to press suit is only in the interests of the lawyers.

 

[Sexfreak4u]

It's not about rape...

never mind, I give up.

You should have gave up on your life long ago and ended it.

 

[kbate]

The employees certainly thought they could get away with it. THEY knew the policy.

Let the courts decide. Don't behave as if pressing suit is the same as winning it.

And certainly don't behave as if the right to press suit is only in the interests of the lawyers.

Oh, puhleeze.

If your company is dependent on government contracts - pressing suit is nearly equivalent to winning it (or at least getting favourable settlement). Let's not pretend.

And even losing lawyers - Get legal fees.

Some things - such as "hiring, promotion, supervision, firing" belong in arbitration before they belong in courts. Rape does not. Rape and other felonious acts - are the province of law enforcement.

 

[Sean]

Kbate is pro rape, well known fact. She's all about teh cock.

 

[kbate]

Kbate is pro rape, well known fact. She's all about teh cock.

see, this is why it will be another 6 months before I post here again.

 

[Sean]

see, this is why it will be another 6 months before I post here again.

LOL. Then my work here is done.

Good to see you, btw.

 

[Recidiva]

Oh, puhleeze.

If your company is dependent on government contracts - pressing suit is nearly equivalent to winning it (or at least getting favourable settlement). Let's not pretend.

And even losing lawyers - Get legal fees.

You can't press suit and win on something with no evidence.

If this is a "corruption of the courts" argument, it's doubly applicable to arbitration, which is smaller and much more corruptible.

I've yet to see someone breeze through expending no money and no effort and win lots of money when there's no evidence and no reason to press suit. If companies decide to dismiss or settle based on aggravation costs, that's their policy and their lack of intelligence. Usually if a case has no merit, no lawyer will take it and if a stupid lawyer takes it, that stupid lawyer loses.

There are LOTS of cases however, where suing large corporations on cases that have merit results in just losing the battle through financial attrition.

 

[Recidiva]

see, this is why it will be another 6 months before I post here again.

Well, that'd be a shame. But, just 'cause you're fun to argue with doesn't mean I'm gonna agree with you just 'cause I'm happy to see you.

 

[bigmarine220]

LOL. Then my work here is done.

Good to see you, btw.

dude thats fucked up why do you gotta say shit like that treat women with respect. would you say that to your mother? and anyways this whole thread is acting as if this doesnt happen that often. Females get raped over there alot and i will say this its not just military women by military men but how much rights do the native woman have men who work for companies like KBR know those women dont have rights go over there see what americans are doing. those motherfuckers are ruining erverything we are trying to accomplish. a whole lot of sexual harrassment is there too espicially when you have companies like KBR in the situation. Those guys are shoot first ask questions later they dont give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves they are in it for the money and nothing else. Those guys that gang raped that poor woman are the lowest scum on earth and the reason KBR was trying to let them go is becuase they can make money for KBR. because they know how to use a gun