Party Lines - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MTI · #1 10-15-2009, 01:11 PM

In All Fairness, The GOP Isn't Pro-Rape, They're Free Market Contract Clause Supporters

Sen Sessions: The Department of Defense let me know to oppose this amendment. There are a number of reasons: because it goes far beyond the issue raised by my colleague from Minnesota. It eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee--virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees
get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial.

JollyRoger · #2 10-15-2009, 01:19 PM

This was an insane act by the GOP. The Daily Show eviscerated them with this last night. I can just see the campaign ads that will come out of this one. Women are going to love hearing this. Franken is trying to plug a hole in US civil law, and the GOP is against it because it ? What? Insane. This is where irrational hatred is leading the GOP, the real reason they opposed it is because one of their biggest bogey men introduced it, and they hate the SOB. Rapists should go to arbitration with the woman they raped. Right. Got it. I can just see the campaign commercial now: "Let's compromise on me forcibly sodomizing you, and I'll give you the BJ thing as a consented act under harrassment, m'ok?"

Jim B. · #3 10-15-2009, 01:30 PM

Haliburton and its "no bid contracts" constitutes ANOTHER kind of rape, and one that went unpunished, thanks to their benefactors, Bush and Cheney, and a bought off (<----"campaign contributions") or disinterested US Congress.

aklim · #4 10-15-2009, 01:33 PM

Al is trying to get the govt more involved in a company's internal affairs. The legality of those agreements is something for the court. Instead now the govt is getting into the business of forcing companies to do this or that. Where does it end? If you don't like the contract, either don't sign it and don't work there or contest it in court. This is all about govt meddling via the back door. Perhaps today it is good meddling to some but as I asked, where will it end? Maybe next time it will be the govt arbitrating a dispute between a McDonnalds employee and the company?

Jim B. · #5 10-15-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Al is trying to get the govt more involved in a company's internal affairs. The legality of those agreements is something for the court. Instead now the govt is getting into the business of forcing companies to do this or that. Where does it end?

Errr,

with comments by aklim

aklim · #6 10-15-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Errr,

with comments by aklim

Very expressive with all the emoticons but totally lacking in content. What part of the statement escapes you? Govt is now trying to control what goes in the the workplace more and more. Is that the part that escapes you?

JollyRoger · #7 10-15-2009, 02:32 PM

It's good to keep discussions balanced, I'm glad we have a view from the "pro-gang rape" faction. Congress is in the business of making the laws, is it not?

aklim · #8 10-15-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

It's good to keep discussions balanced, I'm glad we have a view from the "pro-gang rape" faction. Congress is in the business of making the laws, is it not?

Ah, I wondered when that would come into play. Support by intimidation. If you don't agree with me, you are pro-gang rape. If you don't support AA, you are a racist. Very good argument.

How could anyone refute such an insightful argument. And people like you used to get on Bush for the "If you are not for us, you are against us.". Yet you borrow a page out of his playbook.

Whether the companies have the right to make those agreements should be decided by the courts. If congress wants to make those agreements illegal, fine. Do it out in the open and let it be debated and not slide it in by the back door like this.

MTI · #9 10-15-2009, 03:37 PM

Unfortunately, the statistics that Sen. Sessions cites in the quote is a bit misleading in that it suggests that claimants do better in arbitration than in civil courts. As pointed out in the committee hearing, a claimant that gets a $100 or $1000 award is considered to have "won" versus a civil claimant that may obtain a much higher judgment. Those darn statistics.

aklim · #10 10-15-2009, 04:38 PM

When I was young, the govt in that country decided that people with long hair tended to follow the US hippie culture. Hippies were all about dope. To clean up the country and stop men from following the hippies, long hair was discouraged. Therefore, males with long hair will be served last at any govt facility. Post office, phone company, etc, etc. You have long hair, you go straight to the back of the line. How much further before our govt mirrors that sort of govt?