ACORN gave bad advice to a fake pimp and got its federal funding pulled. Halliburton employees gang-rape a coworker, but we keep handing them federal contracts. I'm not seeing the way out on this one for Thune or the GOP.
The victim will have recourse in court- and most likely those involved will be prosecuted- but ban Halliburton from EVER having another contract because of one incident ? ACORN has more issues than "bad advice to a fake pimp". Thune was not by any stretch defending the action, but merely not able to support the bill based on a larger scope of ramifications. I support decisions made with thoughts of the future , not based on the emotion of one incident.
Donna, the bill wasn't to ban Halliburton from ever having another contract. It only bans them if they continue to have that clause in their contracts so they can cover up rape. They shouldn't be able to get a contract from the United States government (with taxpayer money) if they want to continue that practice.Even though I don't like Halliburton, I would be okay with them still getting U.S. contracts only if they take out that evil clause.
I smell spin.What Franken failed to reveal is that On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones' federal lawsuit against KBR and several affiliates can be tried in open court.Read that here: http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1754Franken's amendment wouldn't have solved anything.So suggesting that Thune thinks its okay for government contractor employees to rape other government contractor employees is a disingenuous, McCarthy-like tactic.
But is it unfair to suggest that Thune would prefer binding arbitration when your company rapes you instead of getting trial lawyers involved? Cause that's the only defense I've heard from him. Also seemingly the only case where Thune likes arbitration.
If you research enough, you will find the young woman is taking on a battle for more than herself. On one clip her lawyer plans to call at least 2 other female ex-employees of KBR to testify. The lawyer also states they know of at least 30 cases but they were confidentially arbitrated under the current contracts of non-disclosure. It isn't the single, isolated incident triggering this legislation
Yeah, because if it's just one rape, who cares? Right Mike? Donna? Mr. Thune?
I submit it is disingenuous to suggest that Thune is FOR gang rape. The arbitration clauses are not about employees raping other employees. The arbitration clause is about employees who accept a job they know to be full of dangers, getting hurt and then suing the company claiming they weren't protected by the company. If you're going to become a mercenary, accept the risks.Rape should not be among those risks. But to suggest that Thune wants arbitration to decide damages resulting from criminal behavior is just plain baloney. Maybe Halliburton's lawyers want that. And it is the lawyer's job to try everything possible to the benefit of his client. That doesn't mean Thune thinks rape is okay. C'mon!The rape victim (every rape victim) will benefit from the 5th Circuit Appeals Court's precedent-setting ruling.I don't know that I wouldn't support Franken's amendment. But to say that Thune supports rape because he doesn't support the amendment, is cheap, gutter politics.
Mike, I thought I was the only writer on the Forum foolish enough to try to defend the indefensible.
Bill, I'm not defending Thune's vote. I'm defending his character.Suggesting he's FOR rape is character assassination. It comes from the McCarthy-Steve Jarding-Stan Adelstein school of anything-to-win school of politics.Politics is rough business. It is rarely, if ever, fair. But I think saying that Thune votes for gang rape crosses the line.
Mike, that's what happens when you vote on the wrong side of an emotionally charged issue. Don't blame me, blame Thune. His vote doesn't make any sense.
Post a Comment