Republicans for Rape?

[SheriB]

The 2010 Franken Senate Defense Appropriations Amendment overreaches into the business of private enterprise. Defense contractors are a part of the functioning free market; not the Federal Government. A handful of isolated assaults is no reason to summon the interference of the Federal Government and Congress. This amendment interferes with the privacy of companies and the ability of our defense contractors to effectively conduct the business of protecting America from terrorism.

Last sentence is the best.

Check out the thirty brave Republican Senators who spoke out in support of the patriotic companies that work hard everyday to defend freedom and liberty. With three out of four Senate Republicans voting in favor of rape, we can be sure that rape is a Republican value. A big thank you to these Senators for protecting liberty, and freedom (including the freedom of companies to cover up rape!).

Republicans for Rape - Our Legislators

I thought these guys deserved some thread time on the pennjersey forums.

[Pineygirl]

The left seems to be all over this like white on rice. It took some searching, and I'm still at it, trying to find out why the Republicans voted against the amendment. This is all I've been able to find so far:

The Truth About the Franken Amendment The Foundry

[xxxTHX1138xxx]

and what left wing wacho fringe group does this link belong to?

Originally Posted by SheriB

Last sentence is the best.



Republicans for Rape - Our Legislators

I thought these guys deserved some thread time on the pennjersey forums.

[blockerhead]

This makes sense. Lawyers, paying off lawyers.... wrap it up in outrageous circumstances. So no one takes the time to get the facts. Pretty much how the entire country is being sold under, more of the same.


This amendment is a move towards the plaintiff bar’s longstanding goal of banning dispute arbitration. But the allegations in this case are so egregious that it makes it difficult for Members of Congress to stand up for the rights of law-abiding employers.

Making it easier for lawyers to take their cut appeals to lawyers. But it comes at the expense of job creation. The money lawyers take undercuts healthy businesses and discourages new entrepreneurs from starting their own small businesses. Why would anyone start a business if they expected to spend most of the money they earn on legal bills? Why take that risk? Congress should not let the trial bar pre-judge America’s job creators guilty as charged.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by blockerhead

This makes sense. Lawyers, paying off lawyers.... wrap it up in outrageous circumstances. So no one takes the time to get the facts. Pretty much how the entire country is being sold under, more of the same.

It's just that, from strict party-politics point of view, the Republicans are in a position where they need to stage a "comeback." So one has to wonder why 30 Republicans would cast a vote that does make them appear to be "pro rape."

It frustrating that there's little information on the Rs reasoning. The Heritage site was the only one I could find. Every single other Google result was of the "Republicans for Rape" variety.

[oldhardhead]

SheriB and Arius, they suckered you into that one!!!!!

And you call George bush DUMB!!!! HAHAHAHahahahaha!!!!!

HAHAHahaha!!! "republicansforrape!" You really believe Al Franken had an anti-rape amendment? Why was it in the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill? It wouldn't be illegal if it were not for Al Franken's amendment???

Talk about a "political dirty trick," Ray Charles can see that one!

Did you look at the bottom of the page:

This website is (mostly) satire. Its creators do not endorse rape nor do they oppose anti-rape legislation.

HAHAHAHahahaha!!!! SheriB and Arius, they sucked you into that one!!!!!

Boy, you would believe anything that was said against Republicans, won't you?

HAHAHAHahahaha!!!!

LIBERAL SUCKERS!!!!

[SheriB]

Oh dear God.... I am currently operating under the assumption that OHH has COMPLETELY missed any point, satire, and/or understanding of my post. In an effort to help this poor, misguided soul of satire (see "I'm sorry" picture thread) I will attempt to clarify.


You are 100% right. This website is satirical in nature. I'm glad you picked up on it. However, you seem to believe that this satire is poking fun at democrats/liberals. This only makes you look ridiculous. The site satires the typical conservative love with capitalism and ability to overlook all else in the face of profit. The following quotes are a small sampling of evidence for this point.

• This amendment interferes with the privacy of companies and the ability of our defense contractors to effectively conduct the business of protecting America from terrorism.
• This amendment ultimately only compromises our mission to spread liberty and freedom worldwide.
• According to Halliburton, the vast majority of employees who participate in internal arbitration end up victorious and compensated for their damages. Since the company is clearly capable, willing, and good at self regulating its internal affairs, why are we getting courts involved? This is going to only burden American tax payers, and force needless navigation through bureaucracy and paperwork!
• In the end, this is another story of liberal Democrats promoting big government interference, taxing and spending. By allowing these incidents to go through the long process of the justice system, this amendment places unneeded burden on our tax dollars. In these times of economic recession, our government shouldn't be trying to find more ways to overextend their resources. So who is this going to cost? American taxpayers.
• Check out the thirty brave Republican Senators who spoke out in support of the patriotic companies that work hard everyday to defend freedom and liberty. With three out of four Senate Republicans voting in favor of rape, we can be sure that rape is a Republican value. A big thank you to these Senators for protecting liberty, and freedom (including the freedom of companies to cover up rape!).
• Republicans for Rape - Supporter Links
• Daily Show video on the front blog page.

Now, to address your questions as if they were not supposed to be humorous.

You really believe Al Franken had an anti-rape amendment? Why was it in the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill?

Do I believe it was an anti-rape ammendment? Well... Yes. Read this and you tell me.

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

Now, otherwise, companies can put in clauses that say "if you get raped, you can't do anything about it," and continue to get funding. Is that what you are pushing for? As for why it was in the Defense Appropriations bill, it dealt specifically with Defense contractors (ie KBR...) and the money "appropriated" to them. Make sense?

Gee, for all of your crazy animations, childish pictures, and terrible analysis, you may very well be a couple of fries short of a happy meal, my friend.

[godless liberal]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

The left seems to be all over this like white on klan hoods. It took some searching, and I'm still at it, trying to find out how I can spin this to fit into my worldview so that I'll never have to re-evaluate my prejudices. This is the only apologist I've been able to find so far:

The Truth About the Franken Amendment The Foundry

fixed.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by godless liberal

fixed.

Huh?

[oldhardhead]

Liberal Democrat Henry Waxman Votes Against Defunding ACORN

Henry Waxman, who for most of his years in Congress has fancied himself a crusader against corruption in government, voted against a House bill that cut all federal funds to the embattled group ACORN.

Oh, so he must support child prostitution using children smuggled from Brazil...

The vote passed overwhelmingly, with only 75 House members (all Democrats) voting against the bill. Only the most vehement supporters of the Democrats’ liberal agenda voted to continue ACORN funding, with Congressman Waxman showing his true colors as a member of this fringe.

Gee, let's set up a web site... is the domain "democratsforchildprostitution" available? We could post pictures of all 75 Democrats...

HAHAHAHahahaha!!!!!




.