Thirty Republicans

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Okay, idiot, lets cover this ONE more time. If you actually READ my comments, you'll see this covered OVER and OVER again. If an EMPLOYEE rapes anyone, you take THAT individual directly to court. Why? Because Mandatory Arbitration does NOT cover employees! Understand that retard? Does NOT cover employees! AT ALL. The only thing it covers is the COMPANY itself. Now why would you sue in CIVIL court a company without taking the rapist to criminal court? Can you say... PAYCHECK! Idiot

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - I simply can not believe how dense you are. As it stands now, anyone that was hired by KBR and signed the contract CAN NOT take the case to an article 3 court UNTIL they arbitrate with KBR. The Franken amendment says, that KBR will have NOTHING legally to do with anyone getting assaulted. AN EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, and 68 Senators agree. You just like to argue! And that is pathetic!

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - You're calling me dense? What a fucking idiot you are! Let me say it again. COMPANIES do not RAPE. Individuals rape. Got that? It's a pretty simple concept. A company is an entity in legality alone, a company is not a person or even a collection of persons. Arbitration covers the COMPANY, not it's EMPLOYEES!. Thus, if someone at KBR rapes someone, you can take that person DIRECTLY to court because they aren't covered by the arbitration. Seriously, how fucking stupid are you?

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Lets get this straight because you seem to just not get it. Any criminal assault (rape, assault, murder, etc) is not committed by a CORPORATION. Since corporations lack physical bodies, makes it rather difficult for them to do so. INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, however, can commit these acts. And since INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES are not protected by mandatory arbitration .... YOU GO DIRECTLY TO COURT, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200, DO NOT UNDER GO ARBITRATION.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - With that said: it doesn't even matter that it was individuals, and not the company. I'll tell you why AGAIN. Pay attention this time. 1.) No crime has been proven to have happened. 2.) The case in which you refer is a CIVIL case, not Criminal. Rape is a criminal offense. Thus, by order of basic logic, RAPE is not the allegation, now is it? 3.) No charges were pressed against the alleged rapists. Now ask yourself, why would someone sue a company, but not press charges against her rapists?

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - If the President signes the 2010 Defense bill, here is how it will be: KBR/Haliburtan right now has a contract that each employee signs that says that if a person is assaulted by a fellow employee, they have to arbirtrate with KBR FIRST, BEFORE they take the claim to an article 3 court.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - I don't know how much clear I can make this. One, it isn't limited to KBR, its ANY contractor. Additionally, if a person is assaulted by a fellow employee, they do NOT have to arbitrate with ANYONE FIRST. The 'fellow employee' is NOT covered by the Mandatory Arbitration Clause. Why can't you understand that? EMPLOYEES ARE NOT COVERED BY MANDATORY ARBITRATION. EMPLOYEES ARE NOT COVERED BY MANDATORY ARBITRATION. EMPLOYEES ARE NOT COVERED BY MANDATORY ARBITRATION.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Also, I have made it abundantly clear, but your brainwashed mentally retarded mind can't seem to grasp it. OBAMA HAS MADE IT KNOWN THAT HE WANTS THIS AMENDMENT REMOVED and if it isn't removed during the review process ... he will utilize the 'Line Item Veto' to remove it himself. So I guess Obama is pro-rape too? OMG! You called Obama pro-rape! Is it because he is black? Fucking racist!

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Wow, your crystal ball is totally broken! I guarantee you that President Obama wants the Franken amendment in the Defense bill.. Political suicide if he doesn't sign it.

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - 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. The 2010 Defense bill has now passed the House and Senate.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Wow, idiot. "You guarantee..." Let me make two things perfectly clear to you, you fucking moron. One: YOUR OWN LIBERAL PAPERS have reported on the fact that Obama doesn't want the bill in there. And Two: No one put you and a hand full of other people even give a fuck about this amendment. It will get killed and no one will even notice. THATs how insignificant this amendment is. Sorry mate, your pet project is just as insignificant as you are.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - "The 2010 Defense bill has now passed the House and Senate." You know, I even sent you an email with the detailed process of how bills pass through the system to become law. Not to mention, you're a little behind the times. Passed the House: July 30th. Passed the Senate: Oct 6th. What? Did you think this was news or something? Idiot.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Just type "Obama Franken Amendment" and you'll see news paper after newspaper ... including two of the Liberal Favorites: The Huffington Post and the Washington Post. They clearly state how pretty much the entire Obama administration is against this lame duck bill, that is utterly insignificant and pointless, just like you. So, 15 year old, why don't you go play Xbox or PS3, at least you're good at that.

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Ummm, President Obama is NOT against, the Defense Department is. Get your shit together and read what these articles say for God's sakes! X-Box? PS3? No, I am a 50 year old that enjoys WII. Thanks anyway pro-rape dick head!

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Ya, it is news. This bill passed the Senate yesterday! The last time you posted about this it hadn't passed the Senate. Wake the fuck up!

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Yesterday? Are you a fucking idiot? Lets see ... I just posted the dates that it passed below. 50 year old. Funny, just the other day you said you were 45. A few days before that, you said you were 40. What? Do you age 5 years a week?? You are the biggest fucking pathalogical liar I've ever encountered. P.S. The Defense Appropriation Bill of 2010 passed the Senate Oct 6. Yesterday was Nov 6. So, not only to age 5 years in a week, you think a month is a day.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - That proves it. Not only do you not know how to read (with any significant level of comprehention), you apparently don't know how to tell the time and date either. Hahahahaha. BTW. Defense Appropriation Bill of 2010 H.R. 3326. I don't know what bill you think passed yesterday, but it wasn't this one. H.R. 3326 passed the Senate 10/6/09

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - "President Obama isn't, it's the DoD!". Ummm, moron. You are aware that the President is the Head of the DoD. The DoD doesn't officially go against a will without at least the President's Knowledge and usually at the President's order. So that makes two possible scenarios. 1.) Prez knows about it, but hasn't told the DoD to stand down. or 2.) Prez ordered the DoD to oppose the amendment. Either way, the Prez is involved and has made it quite clear his intentions.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Lets see.... GovTrack, Library of Congress, Huffington Post, NY Times, Washington Post, Whitehouse, GoP, Democrats, DoD ... If you go to each of those websites, you'll see that they say the same thing. Bill passed the Senate on Oct 6th. Now, Huffington Post, NY Times, Washington Post, and several others have articles on how Obama doesn't want this amendment. So basically, phillip, instead of living in your dream world, try paying attention to facts.

phillipmarch22 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - You are so cute! You also have a tendency to change the subject when you are up against the wall. I was born in 1959, I am 50 years old. I retired at 40. The President can set aside the DOD's opinion and sign the bill.. I am sure he has already disagreed with the DOD.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Change the subject? The only subject changing I do is from your fantasy to real life fact. You need to wake up son. Plus, I already know how old you are, you can quit lying, punk.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Phillip phillip, Here's something else you haven't thought of, which again provides proof to the pointlessness of this amendment. It's an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010. Which means .......................... That it will only affect defense funding for the FY2010. It won't carry over to 2011, 2012, etc. So once again, utterly and completely pointless.

TerryEFV2 Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Shame. Just shame.

mcdonalsuny Says:

Nov 13, 2009 - Yes, I agree. It's really a shame that liberals are so underhanded, so desperate, so shallow, that they attempt to take a bill that has no bearing no rape, doesn't affect rape legslation, doesn't aid any rape victim into a rape bill. Then attempt to smear a party by saying those who voted against it as 'pro-rape'. Shameful. Just shameful.

masterbuilder2009 Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - Interesting thing is that many of these senators have daughters. I doubt they would be so complacent if their daughter was gang-raped and locked in a box.