Besides Ron Lambert, I mean. Because... really?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
though i dont consider myself a republican, if afforded only two options, repubican or democrat, i would say republican because its with that party that i share the most beliefs.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Much like the above poster, I'm not in line with everything the Republican party stands for, but I generally agree with them more than I do with Democrats.
More importantly, I actually find most Republicans/Conservatives/Right-leaning individuals much more reasonable and capable of having civil discussions, even on issues we disagree about. Not so much with the other side.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Is one of those beliefs that gang rape should be protected?
This is a story from this week, in which Senator Franken 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."
In this case that provoked this amendment, Halliburton/KBR are protecting the individuals that gang raped and savagely beat Jamie Leigh Jones, who was left "naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery."
Today, thirty Republicans (including John McCain) voted to protect KBR's contracts from this amendment. These are the people with whom you're most in agreement?
Eddie, cool it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'ld argue [about the original question] that its getting harder to be either republican or democrat as the democratic congress despite a supermajority and the ability to force feed legislation through congress is utterly spineless in doing so.
use it or lose it pals.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think you got some non in your sequitur.
In what way does this have anything to do with what I said? I agree with Republicans more than with Democrats. That's not a resounding endorsement of every vote every Republican senator has cast.
To respond to what you said: I'm curious how KBR is "restricting their employees from taking workplace sexual ssault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
I mean, I'm wondering, legally, how they're doing that. Before I can really pass judgment, I'd need to know the particulars involved, and exactly what Franken's amendment would do. Franken has an absolutely atrocious track record at making anything resembling a good decision, so I'm curious. Maybe this is something I could agree with him about. That'd be interesting.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
What does it take? Republicans are literally protecting rapists in the name of cronyism.
It's such a stupendously corrupt and stupid party, and has been for decades. What could decent people possibly have in common with Republicans?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
For the record, Dan, I'm not saying you endorse gang rape. But for a party that uses homophobia to obtain a "moral majority," you'd think this vote alone would be enough to prevent a voter from supporting them.
But Tom's right, I'm being too aggressive. What issues are Republicans right about?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Lalo, as a general rule political decisions are very rarely complete no-brainers. If the correct vote is so obvious that there's nothing to discuss, you never hear about it. So just sitting there and shouting "Protecting gang rape" is not helpful; that's the Democratic spin on it, no doubt, but there's such a thing as hearing both sides of the story. To convince people that the Republicans are in the wrong here, you need, first, to give details on what Halliburton is supposedly doing; second, to show how Franken's bill would put a stop to it; and third, that the Republicans don't have a point when they say "And it would also have thus-and-so side effects". There are always side effects. Sometimes they are even more undesirable than the thing the law is intended to prevent. Hard cases make bad law, and this is why: Hard cases are rare, and when you make a tough law to address them - in the full fury of a really righteous outrage - you generally get laws that are rather bad in the more run-of-the-mill daily grind.
Details, man! Details are what convince, not shouting the soundbite slogans of one side.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think I'll wait a little while and see what the deeper story here is, because I have difficulty imagining - whatever else anyone thinks of them - that all of these national politicians aren't interested in being re-elected.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Thank you KoM. You said that very well.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't belong to either political party - or any of the smaller parties either. I personally believe that belonging to a party would inhibit my ability to view each situation in the light of its own merits. However, others have reasonable arguments that belonging to a party is important, even if you DO disagree with some of their stances.
Thus, even if someone on here said, "I am a steadfast republican" and even IF this is really about supporting gang rape (which I SERIOUSLY doubt), then I don't think you can claim that just because someone is a republican they also support gang rape.
Perhaps they are republican because they find the general ideals of the republican party in line with their own beliefs. Perhaps they feel like if they belong to the party they can support those ideals while steering the party away from rash actions (like this supposed gang rape support).
Lets not be so overwhelmingly and unilaterally self righteous here.
And, just for the record, I don't support gang rape. Do you honestly believe there is anyone on Hatrack who does? If there is someone on Hatrack who supports Gang Rape, please feel free to call my bluff, but I'm relatively sure you don't exist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
By now people have probably picked up on the fact that my primary political cause is the adoption of UHC in the united states. everything else, including afghanistan, gay rights, global warming, etc, is pretty far behind that. as a result, I really only have one game in town and that is the democrats.
shame, but, what can I do. the GOP is horrendously backwards insofar as our health systems are concerned. progress cannot be achieved without directly overcoming them, as they are fully opposed to real reform. in order to work towards my aims, they must be fought and dis-empowered at every turn.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: And, just for the record, I don't support gang rape. Do you honestly believe there is anyone on Hatrack who does? If there is someone on Hatrack who supports Gang Rape, please feel free to call my bluff, but I'm relatively sure you don't exist.
i take it back, my major platform is being pro gang rape
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it is not very popular but then again neither is the BNP's
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: By now people have probably picked up on the fact that my primary political cause is the adoption of UHC in the united states. everything else, including afghanistan, gay rights, global warming, etc, is pretty far behind that. as a result, I really only have one game in town and that is the democrats.
shame, but, what can I do. the GOP is horrendously backwards insofar as our health systems are concerned. progress cannot be achieved without directly overcoming them, as they are fully opposed to real reform. in order to work towards my aims, they must be fought and dis-empowered at every turn.
wait... really? these paragraphs do make sense to me but I could also see them as being sarcastic in a weird way that you do with some frequency.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: By now people have probably picked up on the fact that my primary political cause is the adoption of UHC in the united states. everything else, including afghanistan, gay rights, global warming, etc, is pretty far behind that. as a result, I really only have one game in town and that is the democrats.
shame, but, what can I do. the GOP is horrendously backwards insofar as our health systems are concerned. progress cannot be achieved without directly overcoming them, as they are fully opposed to real reform. in order to work towards my aims, they must be fought and dis-empowered at every turn.
some of your statements reflect the very reasons why there is no progress in healthcare reform in america. but and fault lies on both sides of the political devide.
most republicans agree that reform is needed. the issues which devide and delay come when deciding how to reform and how much reform is needed.
im not saying you do but if you view "real" reform as single-payer, taxpayer funded, UHC then quiet appropriately any objection to that would be an obstacle which needs "overcoming".
if you want reform in the way of affordable, comprehensive healthcare for all legal, hardworking and honest americans, utilizing both state and private organizations, then youre speaking in a way republicans can understand you, even if they still dont agree with you.
one side sees the proposed bills as too strong and the other side sees them as too weak. there needs to be a consensus. neither side is making many meaningful concessions.
we shouldnt be too hasty to pass legislation that wont go into effect for a few years yet will affect us for decades to come.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I see the proposed bill as doing nothing to address the stated concerns and doing odd things with money I can't quite follow. I'm always suspect of a bill until I can follow the money.
As for the Republican thing, I think I'm most in line with near-extinct New England moderate subspecies. I considered switching to the Blue Dogs because they seemed so reasonable on health care. Until I looked them up and saw that their biggest campaign contributors were the health care industry. So are they really reasonable or just deep in the pocket?
If the Reps get a little sense, I'd be happy to stay. I love the idea of providing opportunities for people to make good decisions and then mostly leaving them alone. I just want enough government to make things safe-ish and fair-ish. If the Blue Dogs can show me they have other ideas not funded by a special interest and can be at least semi-effective getting their message out, I'd be happy to switch.
I just need someone to step up.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:To respond to what you said: I'm curious how KBR is "restricting their employees from taking workplace sexual ssault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
Their employment contract requires victims of sexual assault to submit to binding arbitration. Arbitrators are chosen by the company, and there's no way to appeal the decision. Basically, in order to take the job employees sign away their right to sue.
-----
AvidReader, what kind of odd things with money? As I read it, it just says that the US will not give defense contracts to companies that require their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements regarding sexual assault.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'd much rather see a bill that does not let people sign away any of their rights of access to the judicial system than one that simply targets defense contractors.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would too. I've never been a fan of such contracts or agreements and have always wondered why they were legal at all. It smacks of a tacit agreement that crimes will be committed, and that we (the parties involved) want to make sure they see as little light as possible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Signing certain sorts of arbitration-only agreements probably still makes sense, but I see no reason not to forbid companies from, as a requirement or standard practice of employment, having employees agree to only use arbitration for certain classes of offenses (sexual assault, for instance).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmmm. I suppose I'd be comfortable with that. Compulsory arbitration as a condition of employment only 'up to' certain crimes-anything violent, for instance.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, arbitration makes sense for military contractors for, say, brawls that don't cause long-term injury.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:neither side is making many meaningful concessions.
If you regard one side as wanting fully public-sector health care, and the other side as wanting fully privatized care, I would argue that many concessions have in fact been made.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: AvidReader, what kind of odd things with money? As I read it, it just says that the US will not give defense contracts to companies that require their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements regarding sexual assault.
Sorry, I meant the health care bill. As Baccus wrote it, all the insurance companies would go out of business the first year it's in effect. But the insurance companies are on board with it. So either they already have a guarantee that it won't pass and they get to look like they want reform, or somewhere there's an under the table money trail I can't follow.
The defense contract bill I know nothing about. In general terms, I'd also support taking away companies' ability to prevent employees from suing for major offenses. I have no idea if that's what this bill actually said, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: im not saying you do but if you view "real" reform as single-payer, taxpayer funded, UHC then quiet appropriately any objection to that would be an obstacle which needs "overcoming".
OKay, for starters, your grammar is really confusing. This doesn't even really make a lot of sense to me. Do you mean "quite appropriately?" I don't know. I'm forced to guess. Going on that, though, the issues is: If the problem is the lack of UHC, is objection to UHC an obstacle that needs overcoming?
Answer: Hell yes.
And it can be dealt with in many ways, including informing the public, dispelling myths and lies, countering appeals to fear ("death panels!" cryeth the Palin), and systematically helping the american people vote out the clowns who object vociferously to UHC while taking kickbacks from those who have the most self-interest in perpetuating the current scheme.
I will do you one better, even. I am not hoping that this reform happens. I am pretty confident that the inclusion of UHC into our healthcare system is inevitable, barring extraordinary circumstances. It will happen. It's only a matter of time. I don't have to convince anyone (though I would like to help it along). This particular bill is not even the largest part of it. I only want it because it will cease some of the needless deaths that our system creates, and (more importantly) ease the path of our transition to UHC, which will still not happen for a while yet but which may be made a bit more painless by bills like this one.
quote:if you want reform in the way of affordable, comprehensive healthcare for all legal, hardworking and honest americans, utilizing both state and private organizations, then youre speaking in a way republicans can understand you, even if they still dont agree with you.
What is this? You want me to back down from "Universal Health Care" to "Neo-Puritanist Health Care?" Insurance only for the morally righteous hardworking and honest folk? No. Health care for all american citizens. No caveats based on whether or not they are currently employed. Your designations of "hardworking" and "honest" mean zilch to me and should have no inclusion in our healthcare schemes. If two broke people show up at a clinic needing preventative care for their diabetes and one of them is an honest hard worker and the other one is a lazy unemployed liar, we taxpayers still have to pay when the same broke lazy unemployed liar comes back ten years later and needs an emergency amputation of his feet because he didn't 'deserve' inclusion into a UHC scheme and couldn't afford all his insulin. We taxpayers still have to deal with the fallout of a series of cumulative health crises foisted on us due to spotty and bankrupting care for our citizens. If this is so alien to Republicans that they can't even understand it, then that's their problem.
quote:one side sees the proposed bills as too strong and the other side sees them as too weak. there needs to be a consensus. neither side is making many meaningful concessions.
Consensus-building is meaningless if the republicans consider themselves strategically forced to attempt to oppose Obama on this issue wholesale as a matter of salvaging future electoral prospects. A "consensus" between a supermajority and a superminority is additionally of minimal import and has no necessary connection to "the correct choice." It is always very possible that one side is right and one side is wrong. In this case, consensus only creates less workable ideas. For multiple reasons, I believe this is one of those situations.
In challenging that, let me speak to the broader issue.
What's wrong with the GOP? How does that relate to this health care mess? How does it relate to your stance and your call for 'consensus building' between two parties?
Really, what's wrong with the GOP? What happened to conservatism?
I have already referenced Nate Silver's Republican Death Spiral, the pervasive chain that has shrunk the GOP drastically, to the point that less than 2 in 10 americans will self-identify as a Republican.
quote:Self-described conservative Republicans represent only about 20 percent of the population. This base is not necessarily becoming smaller; it's still alive and kicking. What is true, however, is that the (1) base has never been sufficient to form a winning electoral coalition, and (2) that there are fewer and fewer non-base (e.g. moderates, libertarian Republicans, Republican leaning-independents). As these moderates have fled the GOP, the party's electoral fortunes have tanked. But simultaneously, they have had less and less influence on the Republican message.
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
Let's play cause and effect and see how accurately this has played out, starting with The Guns of August.
quote:In April the Department of Homeland Security issued a report, originally commissioned by the Bush administration, on the rising threat of violent right-wing extremism. It was ridiculed by conservatives, including the Republican chairman, Michael Steele, who called it “the height of insult.” Since then, a neo-Nazi who subscribed to the anti-Obama “birther” movement has murdered a guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington, and an anti-abortion zealot has gunned down a doctor in a church in Wichita, Kan.
This month the Southern Poverty Law Center, the same organization that warned of the alarming rise in extremist groups before the Oklahoma City bombing, issued its own report. A federal law enforcement agent told the center that he hadn’t seen growth this steep among such groups in 10 to 12 years. “All it’s lacking is a spark,” he said.
This uptick in the radical right predates the health care debate that is supposedly inspiring all the gun waving. Nor can this movement be attributed to a stepped-up attack by Democrats on this crowd’s holy Second Amendment. Since taking office, Obama has disappointed gun-control advocates by relegating his campaign pledge to reinstate the ban on assault weapons to the down-low.
No, the biggest contributor to this resurgence of radicalism remains panic in some precincts about a new era of cultural and demographic change. As the sociologist Daniel Bell put it, “What the right as a whole fears is the erosion of its own social position, the collapse of its power, the increasing incomprehensibility of a world — now overwhelmingly technical and complex — that has changed so drastically within a lifetime.”
quote:At a town hall meeting this week, a partisan crowd of over 2,000 people cheered on Rep. Wally Herger’s (R-CA) fear-mongering about the Obama administration and its policy proposals:
Herger did not hold back on his opinion of the health care plan and the administration’s appointment of “czars” to head various departments and task forces. “Our democracy has never been threatened as much as it is today,” Herger said to a loud standing ovation.
The audience also loudly cheered a man who stood up and declared himself to be “a proud right wing terrorist.” “Amen, God bless you,” Herger responded. “There is a great American.”
To underscore the issue: Herger cannot be waved away as just a fringe nut. He is a congressional representative. He is the face of the GOP. More importantly, he's a stellar example of what mentality is left behind in the GOP after the spiral has collapsed the GOP inward. The Big Tent is dead.
This brings up another important issue: why is the remaining GOP going all-out against health care reform of any sort? One could point at issues such as special interest and sinecure incentives, but there are two broader patterns at work here.
The first is that the GOP itself knows on a strategic level that were America to adopt UHC, it would be permanent. It would become as politically untouchable as Medicare and Medicaid. — Reagan famously declared that Medicare would be horrible to our old people and would also be the 'death of capitalism,' and the core rhetoric on health care amongst the GOP strategists has altered little. Back then, they insisted that Medicare would be a mistake and that our elderly would loathe it; today the elderly have higher satisfaction with their care than the rest of us do, and Medicare is entirely unassailable. To try to revoke Medicare would be political suicide.
They know that were the country to successfully enact UHC, the same event would happen again. We would simply become like every other modernized nation, UHC would become unassailable, and it would be a deathly blow to conservatism. The CATO institute, one of those very conservative think tanks/sinecure incentivizers, has admitted as such. Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute and therefore one of the most prominent ideological directors of conservative policy through sinecure incentives, wrote a piece called Blocking Obama's Health Plan Is Key to the GOP's Survival. The idea is that if Obama gets universal health care passed, he will bring "reluctant voters" into the Democratic coalition because the program will become infinitely preferable to the prior situation in America and such a system will inexorably become as untouchable as Medicare/Medicaid, and thus Republicans must at all costs prevent that from happening, because if the program is allowed to pass, Americans will love it despite the fact the GOP told them they won't love it.
In effect, the GOP has to block an infinitely preferable system because they are defined in part as being against that system; if the system is allowed to be enacted in spite of their claims, it will triumph in spite of their claims, and they spend a few decades bleeding out adherents because they are identified solidly as the people who tried to stop a great thing from happening, while trying to catch up to the new normal.
The second reason is because the GOP has become a victim of perverse incentives that they have inflicted on themselves: they thrive on dysfunction, as Thomas Frank describes in How Dysfunction Helps the GOP. In essence, the Republican party says its own mistakes prove government can't work; since they are rewarded by 'vindication' when the government does not work, they have an incentive to ensure that government does not work, so they keep government from working.
quote:'Remember the $400 hammer? How 'bout that $600 toilet seat?" asks a Conservatives for Patients' Rights TV commercial criticizing President Barack Obama's health-care plan. "Seems when Congress gets involved, things just cost more."
As it happens, I do remember the incident of the $436 hammer, the one that made headlines back in 1984. And while it may "seem" in hazy retrospect as though it showed how "things just cost more" once those silly liberals in Congress get started, what the hammer episode actually illustrated was a very different sort of ripoff. The institution that paid so very much for that hammer was President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon. A private-sector contractor was the party that was pleased to take the Pentagon's money. And it was a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, also known as "Congress," who publicized the pricey hardware to the skies.
But so what? Myth is so much more satisfying than history, and with myth the competence of Washington actors from 25 years ago doesn't matter any more. Nor does it matter which arm of the federal colossus did what. Republican or Democrat, White House or Congress, they're all part of a monolithic, undifferentiated "government" that acts according to a money-burning logic all its own.
The myth has been getting a lot of play from conservatives in recent weeks as the debate over health care has heated up. The message, as always, is that government can't do anything right.
Where the conservative mythologists show their hand is when they use their own monumental screw-ups, committed during conservatism's long years in charge of the government, to prove that government in general is a futile proceeding, and that Democratic health-care plans, in particular, can't possibly succeed.
quote:A government that works, some conservatives fear, is dangerous stuff. It gives people ideas. Universal health care isn't just a bad idea for their buddies in the insurance business; it's a gateway drug to broader state involvement in the economy and hence a possible doomsday scenario for conservatism itself. As two fellows of the Ethics and Public Policy Center fretted in the Weekly Standard in May, "health care is the key to public enmeshment in ballooning welfare states, and passage of ObamaCare would deal a heavy blow to the conservative enterprise in American politics."
On the other hand, government fails constantly when conservatives run it because making it work would be, for many of those conservatives, to traduce the very laws of nature. Besides, as we can now see, bungling Katrina recovery or Pentagon procurement pays conservatives huge dividends. It gives them potent ammunition to use when the liberals have returned and are proposing another one of their grand schemes to reform health care.
This is the perverse incentive that is slowly remaking the GOP into the Snafu Party. And in those commercials and those proclamations we should also discern a warning: That even if Democrats manage to set up a solid health-care program, conservatives will do their best, once they have regained power, to drop it down the same chute they did the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Maybe they will appoint a tobacco lobbyist to run the thing. Maybe they will starve it for funds. Or antagonize its work force. And as it collapses they will hand themselves their greatest propaganda victory of all. They will survey the ruins and chide, "You didn't really think government could work, did you?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As I read it, it just says that the US will not give defense contracts to companies that require their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements regarding sexual assault.
I must say that opposition to this does not strike me as "protecting gang rape". If the crime that triggered the controversy is as described - violent assault by several people - then it goes well beyond anything that a civil suit should be handling anyway, it's bang into criminal law. I don't see how anyone could have signed away their rights to protection from that sort of thing, which isn't Halliburton's job, it's the job of the police and state prosecutors. The Republicans are no doubt thinking "Let the police handle this one", and I can't say they're wrong to do so; it doesn't sound like a matter for a civil suit. And then they are further thinking "And what about the next poor slob who maybe has one too many at the company Christmas party? He might well want some binding arbitration without the whole civil-suit shebang." Surely cases where binding arbitration is helpful are a lot more common than violent rapes, which as noted should be handled by criminal courts anyway?
Edit to add: So yeah; if concern for the actual costs and benefits of a bill, as opposed to passing laws in blind outrage because of a particular crime, makes me a supporter of gang rape - well, hand me that lubricant and hold her down.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Whoa.
Let's not let perfectly reasonable speculation like that get in the way of insinuating Republicans protect gang rape if it helps defense contractors.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: which isn't Halliburton's job, it's the job of the police and state prosecutors.
If it takes place outside of the US, in a war zone, who has prosecuting authority?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Responding to the original question and not the crap that came after it:
Kinda. Yes, I'm still a Republican, but I'm only kinda here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: which isn't Halliburton's job, it's the job of the police and state prosecutors.
If it takes place outside of the US, in a war zone, who has prosecuting authority?
I'm not a lawyer military or otherwise, but I certainly hope that the UCMJ has provisions for this sort of thing. Possibly involving military tribunals and shooting or hanging the rapists? One can only hope.
Whatever the case there, though, the desire for a civil suit in this case strikes me as a bit weird. What's the worst a civil court can do? Order the perpetrators to pay reparations? Employees of military contractors are no doubt of the middle class, but they are not notoriously wealthy. Violent rape is surely one of those crimes that absolutely deserves a nice long prison sentence, which civil lawsuits are not empowered to hand out.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I must say that opposition to this does not strike me as "protecting gang rape". If the crime that triggered the controversy is as described - violent assault by several people - then it goes well beyond anything that a civil suit should be handling anyway, it's bang into criminal law.[I don't see how anyone could have signed away their rights to protection from that sort of thing, which isn't Halliburton's job, it's the job of the police and state prosecutors. The Republicans are no doubt thinking "Let the police handle this one", and I can't say they're wrong to do so; it doesn't sound like a matter for a civil suit.
American contractors in Iraq fall under neither Iraqi nor American criminal law. There are no police to step in and investigate, there is no state's attorney to prosecute the case.
And things were not set up that way by accident.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's certainly a bit of a problem, then. But I must say that a ban on binding arbitration for defense contractors strikes me as a rather roundabout means of dealing with it. Wouldn't it be better to set up some rules for dealing with crimes in occupied areas?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
And they are not part of the military, so out of the military jurisdiction. Hence, the only recourse was a civil suit which Haliburton blocked in its defense. It doesn't want to be blamed for the actions of its people either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok. Clearly this is a very bad situation for the woman who was raped. And, as the saying goes, something must be done, and this is something, so therefore... Right? No. Hard cases make bad law. Put the damn contractors under military jurisdiction! How difficult does this need to be made? Or, heck, make a procedure for setting up a civil administration in occupied areas, and have it include a prosecutor's office and whatnot. Judging by what happened in Iraq, this would be a good idea on grounds quite independent of this particular crime. If America is going to go about occupying largish countries every ten years or so, it would pay to get good at it. But messing about with who can or cannot be paid, on the basis of how they set up their contracts? How off-target is that? If you want rape in an occupied area to be illegal, make it illegal and give someone the job of enforcing it. Duh. Rules about contracts are just... I don't know, it seems completely off base. Not so much shooting squirrels with cannon as shooting squirrels to your north with an eastward-pointing water pistol, in the hope that the Coriolis force will come to your aid and give them a righteous dousing. Maybe it will, but it doesn't seem that the squirrels will be hugely inconvenienced, and anyway, why make it so difficult?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
She should get a gun and murder them. Under the reasoning provided if it doesnt fall under iraqi or american law and ignores halburton she should get off scott free.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
nice post above Samp.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: nice post above Samp.
Second.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: nice post above Samp.
Second.
Thirded.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not so much shooting squirrels with cannon as shooting squirrels to your north with an eastward-pointing water pistol, in the hope that the Coriolis force will come to your aid and give them a righteous dousing. Maybe it will, but it doesn't seem that the squirrels will be hugely inconvenienced, and anyway, why make it so difficult?
I just wanted to say how much I loved this.
And I agree. If we want rape to be illegal, let's just invent a juristiction for defense contractors. It's not like Haliburton's worried they won't get paid.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think you people are missing the point. While I don't know the details of this case, its highly unlikely that we are talking about suing the men who raped her. The issue at hand is whether or not she can sue Halliburton/KBR and its managers for creating and maintaining the unsafe working/living conditions in which this rape occurred, for failing to respond to repeated complaints about the unsafe conditions and for mishandling the the case after the rape occurred (including loosing evidence, failing to provide adequate medical and psychological help, locking up the victim in a container and so on).
The fact that the rape occurred in a war zone, outside the jurisdiction of US or Iraqi law certainly further complicates this case. But I know that that issues is one that both the courts and congress have been addressing in other ways. Eliminating a loop hole that makes rape legal for military contractors isn't the point of this amendment.
Businesses routinely face issues of liability over things like work place injuries and sexual harassment. Many corporations, like Haliburton, make employees sign these kinds of wavers because litigating such claims is very expensive and because they perceive that juries are biased in favor of the victim.
I think the question at hand isn't at all about protecting gang rape, its about protecting corporations from liability. This amendment effectively sets stricter limits on corporations ability to protect themselves from civil liability if they accept government contracts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In regards to the OP, I think the more legitimate questions are whether any of the republicans here are actually still pleased with what their elected representatives are doing or approve of the direction the party is heading.
And I am actually interested in hearing the hatrack republicans response to those questions along with their reasons.
[ October 12, 2009, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Some of them yes, some of them, no. But it is a useless question. Are all democrats here actually still please with that their elected representatives are doing and so on? Their answer would most likely be the same as mine. Unless they are completely happy with people like Rangel....
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Some of them yes, some of them, no. But it is a useless question. Are all democrats here actually still please with that their elected representatives are doing and so on? Their answer would most likely be the same as mine. Unless they are completely happy with people like Rangel....
Its only a pointless question if you choose to answer it with a simple yes or no rather than explaining your reasons as I asked.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Some of them yes, some of them, no. But it is a useless question.
If you really think it's a useless question, that's pretty tragic but if it is in any way indicative of the mindset of people who still self-identify as conservatives, it might explain some things.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I'll take the bait, Rabbit.
I'm still a registered Republican. Though I tend not to get really into politics in general, I registered as one because I tend to lean towards the very broad ideals of the party. An example: I'd rather see normal citizens going about helping those less fortunate than letting the goverenment handle organizing it, etc.
My fiance is still a Republican on the books, but he's seriously considering changing that to read Libertarian.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:While I don't know the details of this case, its highly unlikely that we are talking about suing the men who raped her. The issue at hand is whether or not she can sue Halliburton/KBR and its managers for creating and maintaining the unsafe working/living conditions in which this rape occurred, for failing to respond to repeated complaints about the unsafe conditions and for mishandling the the case after the rape occurred (including loosing evidence, failing to provide adequate medical and psychological help, locking up the victim in a container and so on).
Ok, again, these are all bad things. But it does not follow that the particular bill now being proposed is the best way to deal with them. And it particularly does not follow that holding the opinion "I don't think this bill is the right way to fix the issues" is a defense of gang rape. I mean, I'm all for enlivening discussions that can easily become rather dry and technical, but it should be possible to limit that to shouts of "Democrats forever, go Dems!". Accusations that one side or the other favours gang rape are not really very helpful.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:An example: I'd rather see normal citizens going about helping those less fortunate than letting the goverenment handle organizing it, etc.
This is actually very interesting to me, as I have heard relatives of mine say very similar: they would willingly give money to people who need healthcare, but would never give money to the government to help people who need healthcare.
It's a strange sentiment, at least in my eyes.
My first question is always... "okay, how much do you give right now?" - because very often the sentiment to give is there, but the actual act of giving is not.
How many "normal citizens" do you think it will take to truly go around and help everyone who needs it? And, do you think "normal" citizens would actually go around and give this help? What if American Idol is on at the time?
It's a great concept to trust to human kindness. It's also more pie-in-the-sky than even the most audaciously liberal social program to believe that charitable giving is the solution.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Whoa.
Let's not let perfectly reasonable speculation like that get in the way of insinuating Republicans protect gang rape if it helps defense contractors.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue at hand is whether or not she can sue Halliburton/KBR and its managers for creating and maintaining the unsafe working/living conditions in which this rape occurred, for failing to respond to repeated complaints about the unsafe conditions and for mishandling the the case after the rape occurred (including loosing evidence, failing to provide adequate medical and psychological help, locking up the victim in a container and so on).
Of course she should. If that's what Congress wants to address, that's what they should address. Claiming they won't pay the contractors unless they deal with it is a bluff - one I firmly believe Halliburton/KBR would call. Congress should try doing its own job for a change instead of trying to make everyone else do it for them.
People shouldn't be able to sign away their right to safe working conditions. Period.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
FlyingCow- I know someone who donates a huge amount of time and money to the poor and is a strong libertarian. I have always assumed that is why she assumes it would work- because if people were like her, it would. However, one major issue is she helps people she knows in need who she believes are deserving. The problem is, what about those people who she decides are not worthy of her help. If someone is not "worthy" they are just screwed. Since kids are often the most likely to be hurt when parent's worthiness are judged, I am not a big fan of that (for example, many people believe if a parent buys alcohol and so they don't deserve WIC or food stamps).
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...or example, many people believe if a parent buys alcohol and so they don't deserve WIC or food stamps)..."
Or if a parent belongs to a different church, or watches porn, or has a nose ring, or wears a low-cut shirt, etc., etc., etc.
This is my argument against religious charities. In theory, it's a great idea. In practice, no religion would ever give money to certain people.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:An example: I'd rather see normal citizens going about helping those less fortunate than letting the government handle organizing it, etc.
This is actually very interesting to me, as I have heard relatives of mine say very similar: they would willingly give money to people who need healthcare, but would never give money to the government to help people who need healthcare.
It's a strange sentiment, at least in my eyes.
My first question is always... "okay, how much do you give right now?" - because very often the sentiment to give is there, but the actual act of giving is not.
How many "normal citizens" do you think it will take to truly go around and help everyone who needs it? And, do you think "normal" citizens would actually go around and give this help? What if American Idol is on at the time?
It's a great concept to trust to human kindness. It's also more pie-in-the-sky than even the most audaciously liberal social program to believe that charitable giving is the solution.
I'll try to explain some of my thinking on this, and a great deal of it is opinion, so know that going in.
First, there appears to be this gradual process that's going on in my view that goes something like this: people allow gov't to organize aid because they genuinely want less fortunate helped -> people give over responsibility that they used to take up themselves -> people take for granted that gov't should handle this stuff -> people get lazy and choose to watch American Idol instead of chipping in as they were want to do in the (distant?) past
In a sense, I think we're losing our sense of social responsibility, and it is due in part to the mentality that this responsibility has been passed off so we no longer have it or at least have less of it ourselves.
I grew up with a family, parents and a church that tried to remain active in helping those in need. When they told us in middle and high school (in Maryland) that we needed 70 service hours to graduate, I'd technically gotten all mine in before I even got to 9th grade. We'd go into downtown Baltimore about twice a month, for example, and help prepare food and serve it to homeless in the Fells Point area. We'd help put up teenagers coming into the area to do Habitat for Humanity type work and would chip in the summers. We'd go off on our own service projects, like volunteering to do odd jobs at a place that helped homeless men with addictions get their lives back on track. Did I, a young female at the time, necessarily work one-on-one with them? No, but if they needed beds made, I made them. If they needed stuff sorted at their thrift shop which helped raise funds, I sorted. I remember giving away my cassette walkman and a bunch of cassettes to a guy I met at that particular place at the age of sixteen. Likewise, I used to walk by this same homeless man on my way from the parking garage to our office building (we've since moved offices), and would now and then give him a bag full of various packaged food stuffs. My parents have now taken under their wing a second family (a mother and son) that were homeless and not only assist them by having them over to let the mom do their laundry, but have helped them meet with people sort out money owed to a hospital, with rent money, with medical issues, etc. They have had them over for many holidays and provided all the fixings for a Thanksgiving meal, give them rides when they can, etc. The first family (a now husband and wife) they aided used to live in the woods around the corner from our church, and they and others at our church helped them meet whatever needs they had as they came, but also helped them to eventually get into the position of meeting their own. Instead of living in the woods or a storage facility, they now have an apartment of their own, a car, and both have solid jobs. The man goes back to the tent community to take food and clothing on a regular basis, and the rest of us provide back-up, so to speak.
It's not the only reason, but I believe it is a contributing factor to laziness to think that because these things are in another's hands, you don't need to worry about chipping in yourself. And though it is a legitimate concern that if you leave such aid in "normal" citizens' hands that they will decide who is and isn't worthy, I also think that helping people as they come into your life has a greater impact on a more personal level than potentially sitting back doing little while allowing a greater body to organize such aid.
I realize that you can't change others' attitudes, but that doesn't change the fact that usually, the more you give your time and efforts to others, the less focused on self you become. Sure, maybe you wanted to catch that TV program, but what is more fulfilling and satisfies longer? Watching the latest episode of Heroes or watching someone's needs being met?
My aunt volunteers twice a week at a soup kitchen type place, and I love her philosophy (she is, by the way, a staunch Democrat) that however ungrateful or just the opposite someone might be that walks in there, it's about giving of herself to others and not expecting to get back.
So I say, stop being a spectator and start being a participant, and I believe...it is my opinion that if the responsibility was considered less the government's and more ours as individuals, we would be more likely to rise to the occasion. That is my opinion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I admire your and your family's efforts. I also think your experience is very unusual, and probably too strongly influences your opinion that people would rise to the occasion. I'm just not that optimistic -- probably strongly influenced by my own experience, which did not include regular volunteering growing up. I've taken part in sporadic service projects since then, but never volunteered regularly, and frankly don't see myself starting any time soon. I donate to charity, but that's about it. And honestly, I think my experience is a lot more common than yours. I don't believe that most people who did not grow up volunteering regularly would start doing so if government programs to help people in need started going away.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Traceria, I do a great deal of volunteer work myself -- and I don't understand your assertion that "if the responsibility was considered less the government's and more ours as individuals, we would be more likely to rise to the occasion."
When's the last time we volunteered to build a road or issue passports? Would you want a self-selected individual declaring that he's volunteering as a policeman? Would you prefer that your water be cleaned by a volunteer team, or your food inspected by a volunteer agency?
It's great that we volunteer at soup kitchens, but arguing against government projects seems sketch.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I see the proposed bill as doing nothing to address the stated concerns and doing odd things with money I can't quite follow. I'm always suspect of a bill until I can follow the money.
As for the Republican thing, I think I'm most in line with near-extinct New England moderate subspecies. I considered switching to the Blue Dogs because they seemed so reasonable on health care. Until I looked them up and saw that their biggest campaign contributors were the health care industry. So are they really reasonable or just deep in the pocket?
If the Reps get a little sense, I'd be happy to stay. I love the idea of providing opportunities for people to make good decisions and then mostly leaving them alone. I just want enough government to make things safe-ish and fair-ish. If the Blue Dogs can show me they have other ideas not funded by a special interest and can be at least semi-effective getting their message out, I'd be happy to switch.
I just need someone to step up.
The dissonance between what you believe and what Republicans do honestly confuses me. I understand and respect your beliefs, but what on earth has ever convinced you that Republicans provide "opportunities for people to make good decisions and then mostly leaving them alone"?
Name a couple issues in which you're in agreement with the Republican party. Torture? Wiretapping? Increased military? Pre-emptive wars? Deregulation of financial markets? Dismantling of environmental protections?
Anything?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that you are taking a rather extreme version of Traceria's position to argue against, to the point of making a straw man. I do not see where she said that volunteers ought to replace police forces; as far as I can see, she is referring only to the task of welfare or charity for the poor.
That said, it's worth pointing out that modern police forces did grow out of volunteer organisations; hence such expressions as "raise the hue and cry", "gather a posse", and "night-watchman state". These organisations did not scale to the size of a modern city, but they worked to maintain public order - sometimes up to actual defense functions, especially in Europe - for hundreds of years.
In Norway, local roads were often built "on dugnad", that is, the whole community would come together and work on them. I grant you that Norway's road system was notoriously dreadful until the 1970s, but not for lack of effort; it's just that you can do only so much with pick and shovel against mountains.
Food inspections: There could certainly be commercial companies to do this, as in rating agencies. Yes, I know, they have a bad reputation, but the idea is a good one. It's just that when you insist on giving an effective monopoly to four agencies, you're going to get seriously bad incentives. Why not allow for-profit companies to inspect food and give it their stamp of approval, for a fee? If they give it a good rating and it goes bad, nobody will buy food with that stamp again. The fact that we need inspections of food does not, of itself, imply that the government is the only possible solution. It's possible that the FDA is a better solution than free-market rating agencies; we can have that discussion; but your blanket dismissal of any non-government options, apparently on grounds of sheer incredulousness, does not speak well for how thoroughly you've thought about the issue. The argument from personal incredulity does not get any better outside the context of creationism.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Name a couple issues in which you're in agreement with the Republican party. Torture? Wiretapping? Increased military? Pre-emptive wars? Deregulation of financial markets? Dismantling of environmental protections?
Lower taxes, stop subsidising corn ethanol, stop subsiding art, in fact stop subsidies generally, build some dang nuclear power plants already, sheesh; dismantle "environmental protections" that don't actually do anything of the sort. Have you actually, honestly tried to look at what a real, live Republican voter might genuinely be in favour of? It doesn't look like it to me.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: The dissonance between what you believe and what Republicans do honestly confuses me. I understand and respect your beliefs, but what on earth has ever convinced you that Republicans provide "opportunities for people to make good decisions and then mostly leaving them alone"?
Name a couple issues in which you're in agreement with the Republican party. Torture? Wiretapping? Increased military? Pre-emptive wars? Deregulation of financial markets? Dismantling of environmental protections?
Anything?
What have the Dems done that you think I'd be in better agreement with?
I think some Republicans decades ago used to have some good ideas. I think there aren't many of those around these days. I don't think the Democrats have done anything to convince me that they're the better option.
As for the issues you brought up, maybe. I do think our military needs to be refurbished. It might be time to reorganized based on how we actually use our forces. The war in Iraq I agreed with. Leaving the country a mess with a no hope for a better future and a charasmatic leader was asking for another blitzkreig. We've seen that scenerio before and it don't end well.
Environmental protections need balance. We've only got one planet so we ought to be really good to it. (And as a Christian, I feel like that was the only job God gave Adam - we ought to get that one right.) But we live here, too. We need to find a way to keep a strong economy while protecting nature so we have somewhere worth living with all our stuff. Both sides go overboard at times, W was just the most recent.
Wiretapping and torture may be necessary in some cases. Personally, I'm not prepared to argue the morality of such things until I get some numbers on how effective they are. While it's wrong either way, how much wrong I'm willing to overlook depends entirely on how much good can come from it.
The financial markets was a honking mess, in my opinion, brought about by unequal regualtion. And we never fixed it. The same problems have started up again already, and we've done nothing to stop it. In my opinion, every Congress since the 90s has been responsible for this mess. We've known our biggest corporations were pilaging themselves and screwing the common worker, but we haven't done anything about it in two decades. Neither party can walk away from that one with a clear conscience.
I don't like either party now. I'm still a Republican because maybe I'll get lucky and someone will step up who's come to their senses and gone back to some ideas that made sense. In the meantime, the Democrats are welcome to prove to me that they've got more on the ball. I'm waiting.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
In reading the specific party platforms/mission statements of the various parties, I find myself most in agreement with the "theoretical" Constitution Party. Too bad that "in practice" they seem to be a party of raving lunatics.
I call myself a small-l libertarian. And yes, the big-L Libertarian Party represents my views more closely than the Republicans too. But, overall the Repubs are "closer than farther" and they're actually large enough to be able to accomplish things from time to time, so I'm still technically a Repub.
Add in that my state has closed primaries and if I want to have any chance of selecting a decent representative in the 1st place I've gotta be registered R anyway... that has something to do with it too. If/when I move elsewhere, I will probably declare independent, but until that time I'm working within the system that exists.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Name a couple issues in which you're in agreement with the Republican party. Torture? Wiretapping? Increased military? Pre-emptive wars? Deregulation of financial markets? Dismantling of environmental protections?
Lower taxes, stop subsidising corn ethanol, stop subsiding art, in fact stop subsidies generally, build some dang nuclear power plants already, sheesh; dismantle "environmental protections" that don't actually do anything of the sort. Have you actually, honestly tried to look at what a real, live Republican voter might genuinely be in favour of? It doesn't look like it to me.
Pleaes, for the love of God, I wish we could end subsidies for corn ethanol. The day the Iowa caucuses are pushed to March is the day we finally make it happen, but no one in Congress will vote for it because everyone in Congress dreams of being president, and no one who dreams of being president will dare speak out against subsidies for corn in Iowa. That includes Republicans, or at least, their leaders, not so much the rank and file.
I'd be okay with lowering taxes if it meant a massive reduction in military spending, but there's the rub. Most conservatives want to increase military spending and cut taxes by eliminating non-military spending at precisely the wrong time. Infrastructure is falling apart in America, and it needs more, not less money, but I hate to see the national debt go up any more, and in fact, would love to see it paid down a good bit. I think having a strong military is necessary, I don't think that means we need a military powerful enough to take on the world's militaries combined though.
I'd be okay with more nuclear power, but it depends on where it's going to go. Nuclear power in the west and south, which is where most people think we need it the most, is a potential long term disaster. Drought is going to become a huge problem out west and down south (well, it already IS a huge problem, so I should say it's going to become a much bigger problem), to the point where those regions are going to have to start deciding between turning off the power plants or letting farms die, or cutting off water to homes. Water resource management has to be addressed in every region you want to put a power plant, as they take a lot of water to run, and much, if not all of it ends up leaving the watershed area in its gaseous form. Robbing already parched watersheds of native water will only make the problem worse. But I have no natural aversion to nuclear power. I'm all for building more of them, so long as it is done responsibly.
The budget for the NEA is so small that I'm not really worried about it. I'd have to check and see what sorts of things the NEA is actually funding to see if I'd like it or not, but I don't have an objection to federal funding for the arts automatically.
What sorts of environmental protections are you against? I don't like burdensome regulation, but seeing the history of deregulation in America, and the history of how corporations acted before the initial regulations were enacted, I have pretty much zero faith in corporations to police themselves when it comes to society's greater interests.
I wish someone would create a party I could actually fully support. I'm a hybrid Democrat/Republican philosophically, which leaves me less than satisfied during any given election.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Water resource management has to be addressed in every region you want to put a power plant, as they take a lot of water to run, and much, if not all of it ends up leaving the watershed area in its gaseous form.
The three we've got here in Florida get their water from the Gulf or the Atlantic. That water evaporating and falling over land is great for all involved, so I guess I'd vote for putting them along coastlines. We've got two great big ones, it should work.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It seems to me that you are taking a rather extreme version of Traceria's position to argue against, to the point of making a straw man. I do not see where she said that volunteers ought to replace police forces; as far as I can see, she is referring only to the task of welfare or charity for the poor.
That is correct, KoM. Thanks. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The issue at hand is whether or not she can sue Halliburton/KBR and its managers for creating and maintaining the unsafe working/living conditions in which this rape occurred, for failing to respond to repeated complaints about the unsafe conditions and for mishandling the the case after the rape occurred (including loosing evidence, failing to provide adequate medical and psychological help, locking up the victim in a container and so on).
Of course she should. If that's what Congress wants to address, that's what they should address. Claiming they won't pay the contractors unless they deal with it is a bluff - one I firmly believe Halliburton/KBR would call. Congress should try doing its own job for a change instead of trying to make everyone else do it for them.
People shouldn't be able to sign away their right to safe working conditions. Period.
I agree, but that workers aren't signing away the right to safe working conditions, they are signing away their right to sue if the employer fails to provide safe working conditions. You may find that an irrelevant distinction, but it isn't irrelevant under the law.
I don't think this is the best way to address the issue, but it maybe the only realistic way to address the issue in a timely fashion. The power of the purse is one of the few powers the federal government can legitimately exercise here and there is no reason to think its a bluff. This isn't the first time the government has put restrictions on eligibility for federal funding and it has in the past been an effective.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I can't imagine we'd be able to carry out that threat. Where would it leave us if Haliburton just stopped working? What would that even do to Iraq and Afghanistan?
I think they've got us on this one. And I can't blame them for not wanting to completely rework every employee contract they've got for an issue we've been aware of since we hired them and suddenly decided we have a problem with. It is a bit convenient on Congress's part.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I was, but now I'm a Libertarian. 2009 Republicans are 1960 Democrats. 2009 Democrats are 1960 Socialists and 2009 Libertarians most resemble 1960 Republicans. Hooray for the two party system.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"...2009 Democrats are 1960 Socialists..."
RonLambertitis claims another victim.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Have you actually, honestly tried to look at what a real, live Republican voter might genuinely be in favour of? It doesn't look like it to me.
Here's the question of the day and, really, the question of the past near ten years now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: I can't imagine we'd be able to carry out that threat. Where would it leave us if Haliburton just stopped working? What would that even do to Iraq and Afghanistan?
I think they've got us on this one. And I can't blame them for not wanting to completely rework every employee contract they've got for an issue we've been aware of since we hired them and suddenly decided we have a problem with. It is a bit convenient on Congress's part.
Nonsense, Halliburton doesn't have a monopoly on defense contracting. They aren't the only game in town. Government contracting is a pretty competitive business.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)