The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Rape-Nuts »
Posted By Progressive 2 months, 2 weeks ago in HumorAl Franken proposes getting rid of the old "it's OK if you get raped" clause in government contracts, but 30 Republicans object.
Read Full Story at snackfeed.com »
341 Views Share Story 25 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Progressive
There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating: people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing. -- Oscar Wilde
I ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 25 (view all)
-
100%
Hhussk2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Watched the video, did some background checking.
Reply
I'm against arbitrations that attempt to prevent court action. Good Job, Senator Franken.
Excellent Job, in my opinion, based on what I know at this time. I look forward to responses from the 30 Republican Senators who voted against it. -
100%
Progressive2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Franken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators who voted against it:
Reply
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)
ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:
Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.
I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-... -
-
100%
Progressive2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have no idea why the list of 30 Senators who voted against this came out as SPAM, so I'll try once more:
Reply
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) -
-
-
-
fiftynineComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
-
sad_posterComment removed: Spam
-
explosiveppiComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
0%
oldslowjim2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, let me say I don't believe anyone should be restricted from exercising their criminal rights in reporting rape or having the charge investigated and prosecuted.
Reply
Secondly, I also believe "businesses" have the right to make a term of employment that restricts employees from filing civil lawsuits and requires arbitration instead. AS LONG AS the arbitration is handled by a disinterested third party arbitration organization and the loser pays the costs.
Lastly, this is very philosophically close to the acorn problem. Do companies have a duty to insure their employees understand that no criminal/civil activities will be condoned? You bet they do! Are they required to supervise employees while on the job to insure no criminal/civil activities take place. Again, you bet they do! However, do they have the responsibility to supervise employees while off the job to insure no criminal/civil activities take place. I don't think I want to go that far! Shades of 1984 and big brother!-
100%
Progressive2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...so gang-raping a fellow employee and locking her up so that she cannot report the crime is OK as long as the business first got the rape victim to sign away her right to pursue their accessory to violent crime upon their employees?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk2 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It time stances like this are really made known and driven home. Stewart makes a great point when he resppnded to Sessions saying that its not the business of the govt to get involved in private contracts, yeahs especially when its the govt who is hiring them to work for them. The Republicans are right, govt doesnt work, but that is only when they run it. Who in their right mind would vote against prosecution for gang rape? then answer: REPUBLICANS.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.