http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html

I think the segment lacked real indepth look at why they voted in such a way.  Haliburton has not been repeatedly occused of raping, so it can be attributed to the individual employees who the women should sue instead of Haliburton.  On the other hand ACORN has repeatedly committed voter fraud as well as other activites that could be viewed as criminal.  Its hard not to blame the company for facilitating the acts when they have had so many occurances.  Its also hard to trust them in roles that are closely aligned to the frauds they have commited.  Its why the Daily Show is not considered a legitimate source of news.  Just a general poking of politics for humor.

Its great that ACORN is not above the law....but Haliburton....well they are special...must shield them against political attacks?

You really are a Idiot Falice...

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

You really are a Idiot Falice...

Yeah these post are getting sad.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

You really are a Idiot Falice...

Nothing to see here...move along.

He's just a hit and run spammer, been doing this since way before the election. Never argues a point. He's basically a gold seller for the Democrats.

Okay, so we're all in agreement.

Falice is a moron and it's okay for a private company funded by tax dollars to obstruct justice in criminal prosecution.

Do what I did and just put the guy on ignore.  He is to lazy to even make decent links.    Plus he just pushes ultra left wing garbage...no middle ground.    Just ignore him.

Originally posted by Teala

Do what I did and just put the guy on ignore.  He is to lazy to even make decent links.    Plus he just pushes ultra left wing garbage...no middle ground.    Just ignore him.

That may be (I haven't been around for a while and don't really know the guy), but in this case, he's got a point. There is no reason a corporation funded by taxpayer dollars should have the ability to impede criminal prosecution of a sexual offense, or any other offense.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

You really are a Idiot Falice...

 

Nothing to see here...move along.

He's just a hit and run spammer, been doing this since way before the election. Never argues a point. He's basically a gold seller for the Democrats.

And he still hasn't figured out how to clicky a link. lol. Does he even read responses?

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Teala

Do what I did and just put the guy on ignore.  He is to lazy to even make decent links.    Plus he just pushes ultra left wing garbage...no middle ground.    Just ignore him.

That may be (I haven't been around for a while and don't really know the guy), but in this case, he's got a point. There is no reason a corporation funded by taxpayer dollars should have the ability to impede criminal prosecution of a sexual offense, or any other offense.

This. I see no reason why she can't try to receive compensation for the damages incurred on her. It's really that simple.

Edit: Because the company impeded her right to sue I think they are then liable. No company, no contract should stop someone from trying to obtain justice. Also, cleffy, is it funny or sad that at least The Daily Show fact checks much better than almost all cable news programs?

The Daily Show doesn't fact check.  They take a story thats already been checked and use that.  The company isn't impeding her in suing the individuals.  The company is impeding her in suing the company.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The Daily Show doesn't fact check.  They take a story thats already been checked and use that.  The company isn't impeding her in suing the individuals.  The company is impeding her in suing the company.

They most certainly do. And they are the ONLY show that actually shows the contradictions in what our elected officials actually say.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The Daily Show doesn't fact check.  They take a story thats already been checked and use that.  The company isn't impeding her in suing the individuals.  The company is impeding her in suing the company.

Really? The Daily Show doesn't fact check? Guess you don't pay close attention to other episodes.

Also, I'm confused then. If the workers do not make up the company who does? Also! It was the company contract that's impeding her from suing the individuals in the company. Did you pay attention to the story?

The Daily Shows staff consists of commentators and writers.  They don't do any investigative journalism that would require a fact checker.  Also you do misunderstand the situation.

The woman who was raped filed a criminal lawsuit in 2005 for rape, however the justice department did no pursue it.  In 2007 she filed civil suits against the individuals involved and the company for allowing that atmosphere to occur.  Company policy is that such deliberations are done in private arbitration instead of public courtcase.  Considering the company is a military contractor, having a public courtcase could reveal classified information.

Also none of the contractors in this case are above US or Iraqi Law.  They either were acting in support of the US Department of Defense in which case they would be prosecuted under US Law, or they weren't in which case the Iraqis could charge them.

The bill under discussion would make it so companies contracted by the US Government cannot prohibit a person from having a public trial.

Originally posted by Cleffy

The Daily Shows staff consists of commentators and writers.  They don't do any investigative journalism that would require a fact checker.  Also you do misunderstand the situation.

The woman who was raped filed a criminal lawsuit in 2005 for rape, however the justice department did no pursue it.  In 2007 she filed civil suits against the individuals involved and the company for allowing that atmosphere to occur.  Company policy is that such deliberations are done in private arbitration instead of public courtcase.  Considering the company is a military contractor, having a public courtcase could reveal classified information.

Also none of the contractors in this case are above US or Iraqi Law.  They either were acting in support of the US Department of Defense in which case they would be prosecuted under US Law, or they weren't in which case the Iraqis could charge them.

The bill under discussion would make it so companies contracted by the US Government cannot prohibit a person from having a public trial.

Ok, even so. I could give a shit about arbitration. I would much prefer a public trial.

Dear God,  pro-rape and anti-abortion party...

This is smelling more and more like a build up of some kind.....

..

.

....

OMG the no child left behind has begun to make sense now....  the puzzle pieces have all come together...

Republicans are raising a new privately owned military to campaign with!!!!

Gotta go,   think im going to find a cave to live in until all this is over.  The US seems to be unable to find things underground.

Sorry if I do not know what Falice posted.  I have him on ignore because he is a hit and run poster.   He is to lazy to post a simple link and most of the stuff he post is ultra-left wing garbage.    With that said, I went back and looked at what Falice posted this time and what do you know it was a decent article.

I know this case BTW(In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack) and many cases like it.    I am so glad she will get her day in court now and I hope she is the one doing the raping this time and I hope she destroys that corrupt company known as Helliburton by some.   That company and the people in control of it are not worthy of breathing the air the rest of humanity does.   I'd rather share the air with the Taliban than those dirt bags!

This is socialism served up by Franken! The government trying to intervene with daily operations between corporations and their employees. Everyone should have voted against this bill! Employees already have arbitration but they're looking for a handout when they take a notion that arbitration isn't enough to load the deck in their favor. First it was the socialist liberal activist judges and now it's the socialist liberal activist Franken!

Originally posted by Teala

Sorry if I do not know what Falice posted.  I have him on ignore because he is a hit and run poster.   He is to lazy to post a simple link and most of the stuff he post is ultra-left wing garbage.    With that said, I went back and looked at what Falice posted this time and what do you know it was a decent article.

I know this case BTW(In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack) and many cases like it.    I am so glad she will get her day in court now and I hope she is the one doing the raping this time and I hope she destroys that corrupt company known as Helliburton by some.   That company and the people in control of it are not worthy of breathing the air the rest of humanity does.   I'd rather share the air with the Taliban than those dirt bags!

I am pretty sure the story posted was that Al Franken, as an amendment to the defense appopriations bill, forwarded a proposal that federal funding would be cut off to any defense contractor who prevented the reporting and prosecution of a sexual assault. 31 Republican Senators voted against it.