Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Other > Motorcycle.Com Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2009, 01:26 PM   #11
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seruzawa View Post
I think that's interesting. I'd like to see the bill and hear the reasons these Senators opposed it before I made a judgment. That could have been a bill with a lot of really bad riders on it for instance.

For that matter what do you think of Obama Czar Cass R. Sunstein, who has called for "reformulating" the First Amendment? In an article, The Future of Free Speech, Mr. Sunstein made it clear he didn't like the idea of "individual" free speech very much and proposed a number of ways the government might regulate speech to make it "more deliberative."
It's a rider on a defense bill i.e. they are trying to slip one in because the bill could not stand on it's own merits.

Franken's Anti-Rape Amendment May Be Stripped By Senior Dem, Sources Say

Liberals are notorious for only telling one side of any story.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead
longride is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 10-23-2009, 02:30 PM   #12
12er
Founding Member
 
12er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF
Posts: 2,801
Default

I dont remember mentioning a party, just seems its oh too easy to identify who's in who's pocket anymore and that is where I'm disgusted. They dont even try and hide it anymore. And by "they" I mean both parties. I also love how the term moderate doesnt exist any more. If your a dem your a Lib, if your not your a con. Where as the majority of voters on both sides tend to be closer to the center.

Being the staunch human rights supporter you allude to being (well at least unborn human rights) I wanted to see if you had an unpoliticized position on this. As the explanations against it (having not read the entire bill myself either) don't seem to allude to pork but just minding their corporate masters bottom line at the expense of female employees lives and bodies.
12er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 03:23 PM   #13
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12er View Post
I dont remember mentioning a party, just seems its oh too easy to identify who's in who's pocket anymore and that is where I'm disgusted. They dont even try and hide it anymore. And by "they" I mean both parties. I also love how the term moderate doesnt exist any more. If your a dem your a Lib, if your not your a con. Where as the majority of voters on both sides tend to be closer to the center.

Being the staunch human rights supporter you allude to being (well at least unborn human rights) I wanted to see if you had an unpoliticized position on this. As the explanations against it (having not read the entire bill myself either) don't seem to allude to pork but just minding their corporate masters bottom line at the expense of female employees lives and bodies.
The implication of what you posted was clear. Your documented dislike of Republicans is clear. You posted it to make a political statement. That blew up when I posted my link. Coy, but so obvious.
First of all it is NOT an 'anti-rape' bill. That is a fabrication and a misrepresentation of what the bill is, which is evident after researching just a LITTLE BIT on your hysterical link about one person that didn't support it as being FOR rape, which is incorrect. The bill wants to allow the rape victim to press charges and sue the perpetrator AND the business. Basically, they want the business to be totally and financially responsible for any actions of any employee. Being able to sue anyone and everyone for the actions of one person has NOTHING to do with human rights OR rape. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. I am 100% anti rape, and the perpetrrator, if convicted, should have his nuts removed forcefully and thrown into jail to be buggerd for eternity, but I can't see where any business should have to pay many hundreds of thousands or more for something they never did. For example, it would be like your child raping someone, so they get to sue you and take your house and everything you own because he was YOUR kid. I guess you might be against that? If so, then we need Franken and Stewart to plaster your face up on the boob tube and declare that you are anti-rape.
__________________
I'm a knucklehead

Last edited by longride : 10-23-2009 at 03:28 PM.
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 05:16 PM   #14
12er
Founding Member
 
12er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SF
Posts: 2,801
Default

Yep, I dislike republicans and democrats which Ive stated in the past and also stated why Ive reluctantly chose the side I chose. I would love an objective discussion without all the name calling as its getting pretty old. Your Absolute disgust of Dems is plainly stated, daily in fact. But both sides are pulling crap that we need to call them on, one of which would be the republicans going down to Honduras talking with a Gov we do not recognize. That I thought used to be treason... Didnt see you bring that one up on the daily rants.

I'll be thoroughly disgusted with the Dem mentioned in the article if in fact this is yanked not due to the legislation but due to lobbyist and political pressure. I can see past Party affiliation.

I do see the employer liable, as I thought there were laws about presenting a safe workplace in this country. Not saying safe as in not a war zone but safe from other employees. As you have the choice to accept the job, but you do not have the choice to choose who the company hires to work beside you. So if the company hires a rapist, they should take responsibility for that no?

If your child is under 18, you are responsible for that child are you not? If you brought them into the world and subjected others to your rapist spawn he11 yeah someone should hold you accountable. Just as if your child took your gun and killed someone with it. The responsibility is yours, well used to be until America became the not me country.
12er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 06:33 PM   #15
longride
Super Duper Mod Man

 
longride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Anywhere they let me
Posts: 10,479
Default

"Yep, I dislike republicans and democrats which Ive stated in the past and also stated why Ive reluctantly chose the side I chose."

But you did choose. And you demonize the other side as much as I do. You ain't no saint youself, but I guess blaming me makes you feel better.


"Your Absolute disgust of Dems is plainly stated, daily in fact."

Mostly becuase they are plainly disgusting, daily in fact. I will add they are cowards and liars too, but I think you already knew that.


"That I thought used to be treason..."

So did rooting against the US in war time. I guess you missed that for the previous 8 years. If you want to do the 'treason thing', I could send most of the Democrats to the gallows right now for their conduct over the last 8 years. Glad you finally found one Repub and you didn't like what he did. I guess he would be the odd man out in that crowd. I see you never mentioned the behavior of the Dems in that rant.


"I do see the employer liable, as I thought there were laws about presenting a safe workplace in this country."

Then why stop at rape? How about if there is a fight, robbery, drunkeness, or any other crime comitted? It also didn't say ANYTHING in the bill that I read that said ' in the workplace". I am pretty sure they meant at anytime, anywhere a crime is comitted, which is why the companies stated that is an impossible burden to carry. I agree. Committing a second rape in the court isn't my idea of justice. How exactly would you define a 'safe workplace' anyway? I bet you can't.

"So if the company hires a rapist, they should take responsibility for that no?"

So anyone that has ever been convicted of rape (or robbery or assault, domestic violence) either should never be hired for any job, or the company is on the hook for their behavior for life? Aren't things supposed to be even-up after serving your time? I guess not. So much for the 'paying their debt to society' nonsense eh? So should the company be on the hook for a guy that is a rapist, but never convicted too? What does a rapist look like anyway? I bet you can't tell me.


"If your child is under 18, you are responsible for that child are you not?"

Employees aren't children. They are adults. Should you be on the hook for their behavior for the rest of your life? That is what you are saying to employers, and that is WRONG.

Like I said before nobody is more anti-rape than I am, but that does not give the victim the right to commit a second rape in a courtroom. There is no 'justice' in suing people that had nothing to do with a crime. It just makes their job harder. Hell, it's just one more reason to move your shyt to China or Mexico, like they need really need another one!
__________________
I'm a knucklehead

Last edited by longride : 10-23-2009 at 06:37 PM.
longride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 08:06 PM   #16
mscuddy
MODERATOR X

 
mscuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Next to my still checkin the temp.
Posts: 5,449
Default

Well let's see how the UN blue hats react to some nut case in a wheel chair toting an FN49 in 7.92x57 with the BAR mag mod. I have nothing to loose, everything to gain. I can't believe people aren't rioting in the streets about this signing over our consititution to the commies at the UN. We get what we deserve I guess. Check this out:

YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
__________________
A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.
mscuddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 05:52 AM   #17
pplassm
Founding Member
 
pplassm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,875
Default

RTFA, guys!

"But they were actually joined in some of their concerns by the Obama administration's Department of Defense"

Not even the the president's staff likes the amendment.

But it punishes military contractors, so it MUST BE DONE!
__________________
Mongo just pawn in game of life.
pplassm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 05:58 AM   #18
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12er View Post
Yep, I dislike republicans and democrats which Ive stated in the past and also stated why Ive reluctantly chose the side I chose. I would love an objective discussion without all the name calling as its getting pretty old. Your Absolute disgust of Dems is plainly stated, daily in fact. But both sides are pulling crap that we need to call them on, one of which would be the republicans going down to Honduras talking with a Gov we do not recognize. That I thought used to be treason... Didnt see you bring that one up on the daily rants.

I'll be thoroughly disgusted with the Dem mentioned in the article if in fact this is yanked not due to the legislation but due to lobbyist and political pressure. I can see past Party affiliation.

I do see the employer liable, as I thought there were laws about presenting a safe workplace in this country. Not saying safe as in not a war zone but safe from other employees. As you have the choice to accept the job, but you do not have the choice to choose who the company hires to work beside you. So if the company hires a rapist, they should take responsibility for that no?

If your child is under 18, you are responsible for that child are you not? If you brought them into the world and subjected others to your rapist spawn he11 yeah someone should hold you accountable. Just as if your child took your gun and killed someone with it. The responsibility is yours, well used to be until America became the not me country.
So, let me get this straight. You are saying that a company is responsible for everything an employee does? Even when the company does a full background check and finds no evidence of criminal tendencies? LOL! In what universe is this possible or even sane?

And America was never a place where other people were blamed for the acts of a criminal. That was introduced by "it takes a village" collectivist hell-spawn..... progressives, in other words.

Of course, dumping one's own blame on others is usual for lefties. They are never responsible for the destruction of economies, lives and families that their policies have created. Oh no.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 08:13 AM   #19
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12er View Post
I do see the employer liable, as I thought there were laws about presenting a safe workplace in this country. Not saying safe as in not a war zone but safe from other employees. As you have the choice to accept the job, but you do not have the choice to choose who the company hires to work beside you. So if the company hires a rapist, they should take responsibility for that no?
That is possibly the most insane statement I have ever read on these forums.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 08:23 AM   #20
schizuki
Founding Member
 
schizuki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,030
Default

I have an idea. Let's have a law that mandates that every child molester notify local authorities when he moves into a neighborhood, for the rest of his life. And let's put them on a list available online.

Anybody who would oppose this must support child molesting. And the chances that such a list would include guys who take an emergency whiz against a wall when a kid happens by are negligible. And the chance that someone would use that list to murder a guy whose sex crime was sleeping with his almost-sixteen girlfriend when he was nineteen? Inconceivable!

If a law has a noble name and good intentions, any opposition is repulsive and unintended consequences are impossible.
__________________
Reverēre meam auctōritātem

Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are praising the Supreme Court for overturning an anti-gay-marriage law that they both signed.
schizuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off