If the Democrats make a habit of it I’ll see fit to condemn it. As long as it’s a one-time thing, on the other hand…
You didn’t address my main point (see previous page), which is if the rationale for the nay votes was that it was overly broad, why didn’t they say so?
http://costofwar.com/ Wars are about money. That has been said since the time of the Greeks . Somehow we get convinced otherwise. But,never has it been more obvious that our move into Iraq. A war that continues longer than WW2 and Vietnam. Corporations are making a fortune in this war. Blackwater and the other mercenary companies are not the only ones.
Halliburton and the other war companies are reaping fortunes off the changes in the Iraqi Laws that we made when we took over. One immediate rule change we made was opening Iraqi business to foreign corporations. That rule was change not made with the interests of the Iraqi people in mind. I suppose we can figure out who made money off that change.
So we allow the war companies to make their own laws. Is that a surprise.? Thae are not labor friendly since the corporations write their own agreements. Having to obey American l laws would just slow down the cash machine.
This is a disingenuous (bordering on sophist) point since Halliburton fought (and appealed) for 4 years to assert it did NOT fall outside the bounds of arbitration.
EP’s point about Halliburton/KBR strategic stalling the process still stands.
Apart from Sessions’ comments, I have no idea what they said. I suspect, however, that given the spectre of “You are supporting GANG RAPE!!!1!” there may have been some reluctance to voice opinions at all.
And so long as it’s a one time thing you don’t think condeming lying to advance the cause, eh?
Oh noes! So not only is it outrageous that she might have to go to arbitration, it’s outrageous that she might have to litigate the matter in court.
While we’re watching the public fisc (as you, utterly guilelessly, keep insisting that this is what the whole debate is about), why not just get rid of the federal bench and bar entirely and refer all controversies to Dio for an immediate summary ruling. Who could have a problem with that?
Sessions commented before the vote, and presumably, therefore, before the “OMG you guys luv gang rape!” stuff. I presume the other Senators who gave comment also did so.
Anyway, if I was being accused of being a gang rape sympathizer I’d make damn sure my non-gang-rape-sympathy-related justifications for my vote were on the record, rather than hiding.
They’re not telling lies. They’re offering misleading statements. Since by your own admissions the Republicans aren’t doing much to refute them, they might even be true.
Or maybe they just don’t think the braying of Dio and his ilk is worth responding to. I’d have supposed that a vote for gang-rape in the United States Senate would have made the newspapers, but outside of the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground, nobody really seems to be carrying this story.
That might be true, but the story appears to be gathering momentum, if anything. I guess we’ll see if they respond later on.
On a side note- Jamie Leigh Jones is really quite hot.
No, it’s outrageous that she was prevented from being able to go to court by corporate slimeball lawyers for four years.
This makes no sense. I don’t understand even what kind of facetious point you’re trying to make here.
The Daily Show did a segment on it.
Just to clear something up, with all this talk about being prevented from going to court and such … the actual gang rape committed is outside the scope of this thread, right? There was a criminal trial for that I assume? And we’re only debating on whether or not she could sue Haliburton? It seems that the characterizations in this thread being thrown around of people being pro-gangrape neglect this.
And if that’s not the case, what the fuck?
Wow.
Well, as far as I’m concerned, I’ll be linking to this post each and every time you complain about Republican lies.
Or “misleading statements.”
Y’know that joke about about the guy offering a million dollars for sex, then offering a dollar? “We’ve already established what you are, now we’re just haggling over the price.”
Though wrong, it’s understandable when working politicians whore their integrity out for political gain; after all, re-election offers them several more years of money, power and fucking interns. But it’s sad when private citizens do it to gain nothing more than the chance to feel self-righteous on the internet.
Quickly: There are plenty of laws that are vague. The lower courts do their thing, the Supreme Court does its. And Congress is free to come up with future clarifying legislation.
**
Can’t we step back and see the entire elephant? **
If you only touch the trunk, the elephant is snake-like. Only touch the tail and it’s more like rope.
This issue is about both using public money to support a company that acts illegally and violates American standards of justice. How can this be a bad idea?
It’s also about preventing binding arbitration from being abused for the same reasons. We’re all for being fair to everyone, right?
Some of us have a hunch Big Business’ lusty penchant for binding arbitration because it has it’s hairy thumb on the Scales of Justice.
Maybe if the heady and aloof enterprises didn’t hide the arbitration clause in the nano-print, we wouldn’t think they’re pulling something untorid on those of who don’t have a legal education or a stable of thorough-bred lawsters.
But too often you get articles like this:
LOS ANGELES, March 17 /U.S. Newswire/ – The son of a Kaiser Permanente patient who died under Kaiser’s care filed final papers with the court today in a groundbreaking suit which requires Kaiser to disclose to patients that its arbitration provisions may be unenforceable. Kaiser routinely funnels aggrieved patients and survivors into binding arbitration and denies them access to the courtroom. Chant Yedalian’s case, brought under the unfair business competition law and finalized today, restricts the ability of the HMO to continue forcing arbitration on patients as a way to limit their liability.
Yedalian went to law school following his mother’s death to find a way to prevent others from suffering as his mother did. [She died from breast cancer after Kaiser denied her a bone marrow transplant that could have saved her life.] Now, Kaiser has contributed $100,000 to a ballot initiative which would gut the unfair business competition law, which Yedalian used to force Kaiser’s disclosure.
“Kaiser broke California law by forcing patients into secret arbitration proceedings without fully and properly disclosing that they had given up their rights. Today’s filing closes the door on the HMO’s illegal actions. The unfair business competition law was the only tool I had to hold Kaiser accountable for its deception. With today’s resolution of the case, Kaiser should take back the donation it made to the anti- patient initiative and stop its efforts to restrict patients’ rights,” said Yedalian.
Mandatory arbitration is a private proceeding in which there is no public record or judicial appeal, and arbitrators are often biased in favor of the HMO. Kaiser failed to follow state law requiring the HMO to disclose to enrollees that they were giving up their right to go to court in case of a dispute. Because of this failure, a court found that the HMO’s arbitration provision was not enforceable. …
BA is dangerous and regularly abused:
Halliburton proves for you that binding arbitration is unfair corrupt and one sided
Bankrate.com (Neutral?)
BA is good and necessary:
Conservative Thoughts and Profundity, “The Truth About the Franken Amendment” (On the webpage Mr. Moto provided earlier or linked thereon.)
Feel free to check my posting history; I’ve never complained about Republican lies. Refuted them, yes, but I’ve never tried to moralize about political strategy; on the contrary, I have often chastised the Democrats for failing to pander to the lowest common denominator on hot-button issues.
There was no criminal trial, no. Not even any arrests. Nor is there ever likely to be. It happened in Iraq. They were officially contracted by the State Department, which has no ability to investigate. The DOJ has no jurisdiction to investigate. The Defense Department collected a rape kit, then turned it over to KBR (not to any kind of court or law enforcement organization).
The DOD basically covered for Halliburton, and now there isn’t anything that can be done about it.
I hope you’re not accusing me of whoring out my integrity. What I posted was totally in line with what I’ve said before, namely that there is no way for the Democratic Party to compete from a position of complete honesty, at least not if they want to be competitive. The electorate just doesn’t get it.
In politics, integrity is something you pretend to have, not something you actually have.
Kimmy_Gibbler, Google: ‘Jones, Halliburton, rape.’
I got 9500 hits including Mother Jones, Gaurdian UK, ABC News, WSJ.
Does this thread have to degenerate into a D v R, name calling session?
Disregard.
Undisregard.
Point of clarification.
The remark: Does this thread have to degenerate into a D v R, name calling session?
was not aimed at Kimmy_Gibbler.
Sorry for my fore-paws.