Right Wingers are now rooting against America!!???

This is related, in a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of way. Perhaps not as serious as the calls for open revolt, put indicative of the endemic oppositionalism. As the first line says, "Whatever it is, they're against it!" Republicans for Gang Rape?

source

[rquoter]
WHATEVER IT IS, THEY'RE AGAINST IT.... It's tempting to think a measure like this one would pass unanimously. After all, it's not as if voters would elect monsters to the Senate, right?


<blockquote>In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."</blockquote>

All Franken's measure would do is allow victims of rape and discrimination to have their day in court -- not exactly controversial stuff. When Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Franken of pushing a "political attack directed at Halliburton," the Minnesota senator explained that it would apply equally to all defense contractors.

The good news is, Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30.

The bad news is, 30 Senate Republicans -- 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus -- voted against this.

Perhaps I should be thankful that 10 GOP senators voted with the majority -- by contemporary standards, I suppose that's a lot -- but what possible rationale could three-fourths of the Republican Senate caucus have for voting against this?

Let's not overlook the larger context here. Democrats are expected to try to find "bipartisan" support on practically everything. Some GOP lawmakers think health care reform isn't "legitimate" if it doesn't have 80 votes.

And yet, when the Senate considered a measure yesterday to give rape victims who work for U.S.-subsidized defense contractors a day in court, 30 out of 40 Republican senators said, "No."

The notion that the majority should be able to reach constructive, worthwhile compromises with this minority is clearly ridiculous.

[/rquoter]

 

That is a silly comment that completely misses the point.

The question is whether to prevent the contractors from forcing workers to use arbitration instead of the court system. Without this law there can still be criminal proceedings, and civil complaints are still allowed, they are just heard through arbitration.

I personally would vote for this bill, but those against it certainly aren't anywhere close to advocating gang rape.

 

Uh, no. Actually the manditory arbitration is final, and contractors are required to waive all legal recourse. This is why this lady was gang raped, and she was fired while the rapists keep on working for KBR.

 

You might be right, I was making an assumption based on other things that I've read. But I still don't believe you, yet. You're basically saying that because the victim and assailant work for a contractor with an arbitration clause, the prosecutor with jurisdiction is barred from taking criminal action against the assailant. That doesn't make sense. Are you sure "legal recourse" doesn't just refer to civil suits? Do you have a link or reference I can look at that backs up the claim you're making? Thanks!

 

Read up on the Jones case. It was egregious enough that Ted Poe (her Texas Rep and a staunch conservative -- no enemy of KBR) backed her. It is godawful what happened to her.

 

nmind

 

After a quick look on the wikipedia page it does sound pretty horrible, but the facts I saw back up my argument.

 

Then what, exactly, ARE they advocating: that gang-rape victims DO NOT deserve their day in court? Why? Give me one, sane, rational reason why an even half-way decent person would NOT vote this measure into law?

 

Because this law does not have any bearing on whether a rapist is brought to justice in a criminal court. It only applies to whether the victim's civil suit can be handled via arbitration or not.

Someone who believes that arbitration can be fair and that it is too much government intervention to tell companies what can and cannot be handled via arbitration might vote for this bill, especially if they believe that the criminal justice system can handle these situations properly in nearly all cases.

 

I think its a bit early to say conservatives spewing hopes for ventures made by the leaders of the country to fail are much different from what was seen back when GW was president.


Sure, you could try to say its different somehow but as a conservative who already takes what Limbaugh and Beck say with a silo of salt, I find nothing different in the general cries of democrats about bashing america.


I wasnt all that happy that Chicago lost, since it was quite a boon for Atlanta in 96. Figured that would help out Chicago too.

 

i disagree. nobody w/ any credibility came out and said "i want bush to fail". as i have said before, there is a huge difference b/t pointing out the failures of a president and saying you hope a president fails, like limbaugh did. i for one hate bush and everything that administration did and stood for, but i never once said "i hope bush fails". i did say over and over again that i wanted him to stop being a failure, but i never hoped for him to fail. there is a massive difference.

furthermore, it seems like the ones who are calling the loudest for obama to fail were the very same folks who said anyone who dared criticize anything that bush actually did was an america-hating terrorist sympathizer who was doing harm to the troops. basically, it was wrong to complain about things bush actually did, but its ok to flat out hope for obama to fail. its hypocritical.

 

Wow, you are calling Limbaugh a credible source?? That's much more credit than I would give him. And to go along with your personal anecdote, I dont like Obama, but want nothing more than for him to be able to fix all the crap that Bush broke(tall task I know) and be a good president. Who wouldn't want the president of the United States to do a good job?


And yes, there were leftist loonies hoping we got our butts kicked in Afghanistan and Iraq just to spite the president(similar to hoping Chicago got its butt kicked by the IOC). But like Limbaugh, I dont hold them to much credibility. Just....ya know....loonies.

 

Groucho in '12?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e7cry-4pyy8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e7cry-4pyy8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

i did no such thing. but he is one of the, if not THE standard bearer of the conservative/republican movement. unfortunately, many do find him credible.

rush limbaugh.

find me one person in the liberal movement with even 1/100th the clout of rush limbaugh who came out and said "i want bush to fail" or who wanted the united states to get its butt kicked in afghanistan or iraq.

 

First, sorry for mistaking clout for credibility. Cant argue the level of clout Limbaugh has. Too bad he has zero brains or common sense to go with it.

Hmm, I dont have the inclination to dig up reports but that was the general feeling I got listening or reading news articles. Granted, it was slight, just like the opposite save hotheads trying to make a story. Again, it goes back to the stupidy of Limbaugh. Democratic pundits left it unsaid, and tended to let GW's mistakes speak for themselves, and just say "look." Rush tends to find something and blow loud trumpets and make it bigger than it really is.


To compare Rush Limbaugh to Democratic types isnt even close. But I only compared the general sentiment I got back then to what i get now.

Just like MOST sane democrats didnt want the US to fail in Iraq or whatever, MOST sane republicans dont want the US to fail in its current endeavors led by Obama. Unfortunately, sensationalism sells, and Limbaugh's side is on the short end of the stick at the moment.

 

agree. but again, he is the leader of the american conservative movement and he has tons of clout, credibility or whatever you want to call it with alot of people.

you know how to use google, right? can you find just one of these articles you speak of? can you find just one example of a prominent liberal saying "i hope bush fails"?

again, my point is that you did not have liberal leaders saying 'i want bush to fail'. but people continue to claim such in order to justify the way the conservatives are behaving today. your initial statement was thus...

its not just you, i hear this over and over again from conservatives/republicans, but imo it just is not accurate. you did not have liberal leaders openly hoping for bush to fail. again, there is a massive difference b/t pointing out ones failures and hoping one fails. and again, the very people who are now calling for obama to fail are the ones who said anyone who criticized bush in any way was a terrorist sympathizing america hater. i dont really have a problem w/ limbaughs comments b/c its a free country and he is entitled to his opinion. however, i do have a problem with hypocrites and the conservative movement is nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled hypocrites.

furthermore, limbaugh made his 'i hope he fails' comment after bho had only been in office for a month or so. you did not hear that kind of rhetoric from mainstream liberals back in february 2001.

again, here you are falling into the trap of trying to equate criticism of bush with hoping obama fails. there is a difference b/t pointing out mistakes and hoping for failure.

there is no comparison. again, find me an example of a prominent liberal saying they wanted bush to fail. the general sentiment back then was that bush was a horrible president and a tremendous failure. how does that compare to what you have now, when conservative leaders hope the president fails and the organizers of the teabagger movement cheer when we dont get the olympics?

im not even a fan of obama, but i have legitimate reasons to not like him and they are based off of things he is actually doing. im not hoping he fails - im pointing out that he is failing (mainly b/c he is continuing bush's policies).

 

Well, since you kept asking. Here is a report of poll of democrat/Bush/US failure similar to what is being reported here of republicans/Obama/US failures.


Link


And a different angle on the same poll.

Link


This was just all quick like, and why I got the feeling that they wanted him to fail.(because to an extent, they did) Sure, the Rush types were making this out to be more than it is. But where there is smoke there is fire, and I would be willing to conclude that its just the opposite right now. Except there is no Rush equivalent on the democratic side to do stupid things and draw more attention to some cautious pessimism.

What I get from this is Democrats did not want him to fail and spiral the US and world into disaster(moreso than already exists). Much like Republicans now dont want Obama to fail and send the US and world into further disaster.

 

there are extreme/fringe liberal commentators but difference is the democratic leaders immediately renounce them and the base don't rally around them

 

I am guessing Republican leaders arent that savvy on what would benefit them more. Defending (or not reigning them in) the loonies like Rush and Beck(and thus their fringe constituencies) or making the smart choice and giving something the middle of the road on both sides can look at and say "ya know, that might be something I agree with.


I think short term would cause a bit of harm, but long term there would be more moderates that identify with the republicans...(but dont now due to these kinda loons)

 

This is weird. It's usually liberals doing this and/or threating to move to Canada and/or Europe.