PDA

View Full Version : The GOP Takes On Sen. Al Franken



S0Noma
12-04-2009, 11:56 AM
Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSthl1Yd_Pg)

wolfdancer
12-04-2009, 01:33 PM
Thanks for the link.

Gayle in MD
12-04-2009, 07:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: S0Noma</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSthl1Yd_Pg) </div></div>

Imagine, thirty Republicans, voting against a woman's right to take action against men who raped her?

Quite reealing, IMO. What's next?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

then, once they realice how many epople realized what scum they were for thier votes, they try to balme Franken for the whole thing!

typical of the Republicans...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Bobbyrx
12-05-2009, 10:50 AM
I ask this everytime this comes up and have never gotten an answer. Why did Obama's DOD oppose said legislation. (link Huff Post of all places) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html)

Qtec
12-05-2009, 10:59 AM
From your link.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable,"</span> said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement. </div></div>

OK?

Q

Bobbyrx
12-05-2009, 11:26 AM
Yes I understand that, after the fact, they say they support the "the intent of the amendment". They were covering their rear ends. "The department (DOD) argued that it and its subcontractors "may not be in a position to know about such things," i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. "Enforcement would be problematic," the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts."

I actually agree with the bill also. The point I was trying to make was that all 30 of the Republicans had reasons that they thought were valid, just like the DOD, to oppose it. But I didnt see Keith Overbite say anything about the DOD and no one started a DODforrape.org.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2009, 03:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I understand that, after the fact, they say they support the "the intent of the amendment". They were covering their rear ends. "The department (DOD) argued that it and its subcontractors "may not be in a position to know about such things," i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. "Enforcement would be problematic," the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts."

I actually agree with the bill also. The point I was trying to make was that all 30 of the Republicans had reasons that they thought were valid, just like the DOD, to oppose it. But I didnt see Keith Overbite say anything about the DOD and no one started a DODforrape.org.

</div></div>

You also are not considering what actual number of people in the DOD were uncertain of how it should be handled.

The pointing out of difficulties in any change, is not the same thing as objecting ot it.

G.

Qtec
12-08-2009, 07:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I understand that, after the fact, they say they support the "the intent of the amendment". They were covering their rear ends. "The department (DOD) argued that it and its subcontractors "may not be in a position to know about such things," i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. "Enforcement would be problematic," the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts."

I actually agree with the bill also. The point I was trying to make was that all 30 of the Republicans had reasons that they thought were valid, just like the DOD, to oppose it. But I didnt see Keith Overbite say anything about the DOD and no one started a DODforrape.org.

</div></div>

That's the point, they have no good reasons.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'> Senator Jeff Session </span>called the bill <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“a political attack directed at Halliburton.” </span> Sessions also stated “The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That’s just now how we should handle matters in the United States Senate.” <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>Neither Sessions nor the other thirty Republican Senators who voted against the amendment agreed to share their thoughts with any news organization.</u></span>
</div></div>

The DoD go on to say,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. <u>"It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States,</u> if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse." </div></div>



Thad Cochran. evasive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc)

We all know their reasons. They are bought and paid for.
The recent [ successful ]propaganda campaigns against HC reform and Climate Change shows just how much control is in the hands of Corporations. Sure, the people elect officials but once they get to DC...

Q...what do you call someone who sells themselves for money?

Gayle in MD
12-10-2009, 12:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I understand that, after the fact, they say they support the "the intent of the amendment". They were covering their rear ends. "The department (DOD) argued that it and its subcontractors "may not be in a position to know about such things," i.e., whether contractors employ the mandatory arbitration clauses. "Enforcement would be problematic," the note read, because contractors may not be privy to what's in their subcontractors' contracts."

I actually agree with the bill also. The point I was trying to make was that all 30 of the Republicans had reasons that they thought were valid, just like the DOD, to oppose it. But I didnt see Keith Overbite say anything about the DOD and no one started a DODforrape.org.

</div></div>

That's the point, they have no good reasons.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'> Senator Jeff Session </span>called the bill <span style='font-size: 14pt'>“a political attack directed at Halliburton.” </span> Sessions also stated “The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That’s just now how we should handle matters in the United States Senate.” <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>Neither Sessions nor the other thirty Republican Senators who voted against the amendment agreed to share their thoughts with any news organization.</u></span>
</div></div>

The DoD go on to say,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. <u>"It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States,</u> if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse." </div></div>



Thad Cochran. evasive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc)

We all know their reasons. They are bought and paid for.
The recent [ successful ]propaganda campaigns against HC reform and Climate Change shows just how much control is in the hands of Corporations. Sure, the people elect officials but once they get to DC...

Q...what do you call someone who sells themselves for money? </div></div>

Sara Palin?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

pooltchr
12-10-2009, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[...what do you call someone who sells themselves for money? </div></div>

A senator from Lousiana!

Steve