So what do you think of the latest stunt by the republicans? (details inside)

These are the same people who immediately defunded ACORN because a few representatives gave an impostor bad advice.

It’s certainly interesting that so many want to cut off funding to ACORN, but not to companies that have actually been convicted of federal crimes or are under investigation for defrauding the government, and now this. If it doesn’t prove the political and hypocritical nature of the ACORN bill, nothing does.

@pdworkin
ridiculous, isn’t it?
But to be fair, it was criminal adive.
But on the other hand, when the daily show showed the impostors, I was like, “Yeah sure they would be honest and serious with that guy”.
It was a 16 year old teen dressed in a ridiculously stereotypical and clichéed pimp costume.

Surprised, not really (KBR and repubs = ♥). Glad it passed. And glad at least ONE of our TX senators voted yea.

If I was Jamie Leigh Jones, I think I would hunt down each of my coworkers and execute them. Damn the consequences.

Really? KBR is above the law outside the US? That shouldn’t be and this vote never should have happened. When an employee assaults you, it is your right to press charges. That’s not a corporate issue.

Glad it passed. Part of me want to be bipartisan and “reach across the aisle” but the much larger part of me is tired of this nonsense and wants to give the Rs the big finger and just start passing ultra-liberal shit unilaterally.

My goal is to pass enough awesomeness that in three years it will be totally, completely clear that the Rs are just whiny scared children and that being progressive and liberal is really more about being, you know, rational and fair, rather than reactionary and whrgbyl.

The OP’s use of the word ‘stunt’ makes this question an opinion.

When you read this most of you are jumping to the conclusion that these Republicans want people to be raped.

The point is that these Republicans want people to be able to enter into contracts of their choosing. If two parties agree to not sue over rape, the government should not step in.

Take your emotion out of your opinion on this and it makes a lot of sense.

by the way, I am not a republican

@jackm
read the article again.
it is not about contracts between corporations and people , it is about contracts between corporations and the government. for example, the government contracts a construction company to build a bridge.
there are already restrictions in place. for example, the government can not award contracts to corporations that discriminate against employees or subcontractors, be it based on race, gender or religion.

Don’t like your company’s policies? Walk.

@ragingloli

The article is calling out people who “defend gang rape”. This is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually going on.

Its people who support contracts that you willingly enter.

Read the article.

read the article
“Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered 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.”
It is this amendment that the republicans voted against.

@jackm Republicans aren’t wrong for wanting there to be contracts where the government doesn’t step in. However, corporations shouldn’t be allowed to make contracts that deny the right to sue for certain issues, for example, sexual assault. This is a gross denial of human rights and the government should step in to fix this.

@drdoombot If you don’t agree with it, why would you enter the contract?

I believe people are smart enough to look after themselves

@jackm, Those that aren’t are the Democrats demographic.

@jackm
because contracts are often formulated in a way that only lawyers can understand it?

@ragingloli,

Yes! That’s why it’s such a crying shame that individuals cannot hire lawyers to explain such things to them.

you know that lawyers cost a shitload of money, yes?

@ragingloli
Think about what you are saying.

“people are too dumb to do whats good for them, so I must step in and show them the right way”

Thats very self righteous.

no that is what you are saying.
i am saying that most people do not have the time to become an expert in everything they enter a contract with. most people don’t have the time to get a degree in medicine so they can judge whether the treatment their doctor recommends is appropriate, so they have to trust their doctor that he tells them the truth.
which is why they need to be able to trust the other party that they do not put such bullshit into contracts.
but apparently they can not be trusted. that is why people were coaxed into loans that they could not pay while being told by the bank that they could. and we know the result of that.
contents of contracts should become automatically invalid if they violate the law.

@ragingloli
“most people don’t have the time to get a degree in medicine so they can judge whether the treatment their doctor recommends is appropriate, so they have to trust their doctor that he tells them the truth.”

You just proved my point there.

Why should we have to pay doctors to give us information on health, but not lawyers to give us info on law?

Careful there @jackm, There’s those that feel we shouldn’t have to ‘pay’ for doctors either.

false comparison.
the correct analogy would be paying another doctor huge amounts of money to verify what the first doctor said, while normally you should be able to trust what the first one said.

why should someone have to pay an expensive lawyer to verify what the actual contractor should have been honest about in the first place?

what you are advocating is the ruthless financial exploitation of people’s lack of experience and reward contractors for their deception of the other party.

I am advocating the freedom of people to enter into a contract, that is all.

If you don’t know what you are getting into, don’t get into it. This is a very simple idea.

with that idea, society would collapse.
the fact is, you don’t know most of the things you get into. most of the time you have no other choice but to trust the other party. trust is the very basis for a functioning society, trust needs honesty, and this honesty must be enforced by law.
shoud the majority of people stay forever unemployed because they can’t understand the cryptic working contracts the companies write?
should the majority of people starve to death because they can not know what is in the food they buy?
should the majority of people suffer from sickness until they die because they have no medical knowledge of the treatments that are available?

because that is what follows from your “very simple idea” more like simplistic

I am sorry you have so little faith in society. People can handle things surprisingly well. The problem with your attitude is that you assume people need the government to do most things, which is simply not true.

I can handle people lying to me, it shouldn’t be illegal.
I can handle reading english in my contract, its not impossible.
I can handle knowing that a company that makes poisonous food would be a dumb business model, so it wouldn’t exist.
I can also handle making my own food if I have no faith in companies.
I can handle either treating myself, or if it gets too difficult, paying someone who spent a lot of time learning how to treat people.

So, yeah, sounds simple to me. i have faith in socity

I can handle people lying to me, it shouldn’t be illegal.
so fraud should be legal, yes?

I can handle reading english in my contract, its not impossible.
that is not the point. the point is that the formulations used are so cryptic that most people, no matter how well they speak english, can not understand them. important points are often hidden among a mass of text and written in small font so that they are easily over looked. not to mention that they are often so long that it becomes next to impossible to make sense of.

I can handle knowing that a company that makes poisonous food would be a dumb business model, so it wouldn’t exist.
you may know that it is not poisoned, but you have not the slightest idea what else is in there. you don’t know what kind of cheap chemicals and flavour enhances they mix into it that in the long run damage your health with you being unable to pinpoint the exact source. according to your logic, people should not buy any food.

I can also handle making my own food if I have no faith in companies.
the only way to do that is to become a farmer. if everyone did that, what would society be? it would be a primitive farming society, devoid of law and order.
can you also build your own cars, extract your own oil and refine your own petrol?
can you mix your own medicine?

I can handle either treating myself, or if it gets too difficult, paying someone who spent a lot of time learning how to treat people.
how can you do that if your full time job is farming?
also you still end up having to trust someone else while not having the slightest idea what he does.
according to your logic, you should not even turn to him.

i have faith in socity
i’m sure the somalians would like to have a word with you

Holy shit @ragingloli! what a collection of straw!

@proXXi
there is not a single straw in there.
i am showing him the results of his ideology and the contradictions that he makes.

I think we both know how the internet works, I am never going to convince you, and you never will convince me. But ill try anyways.

-Fraud
Let me rephrase what I said. I believe that lying should be illegal if you break a contract.

-legalese
No matter how you twist it, it is still english, so you can understand it. If you don’t think you can, then pay someone else to explain it.

-food
If it wasn’t the law to advertise what was in your food, then the companies that did it would be making a good business choice.

-farmers
This is exactly why people trust eachother, We trust eachother not because the goverment shows us we can, but because it makes sense if we both trust eachother.

-medicine
If my full job is farming, and your full time job is medicine, lets trade. pretty simple. very basic societies were able to figure that one out

-somalians
the existence of evil doesn’t prove everyone is. tell the people trying to make an honest living in somalia that you have no faith in them

I’m just adding my 2 pence and nothing more.
Contracts such as these wouldn’t be legal by default in the UK, you have to be willing all the way through and by the fact it’s rape means by default it’s illegal and the contract is null and void.

A story that maybe reflects the opposite side of this I heard a few months ago.
A man diagnosed with cancer was petrified of needles, and was on purpose missing his operation, costing the NHS time and money.
One of the solutions was to get this man to sign a document saying they could restrain him, to go through with the operation, with talks to the legal advisers it was clear this contract wouldn’t stand in a British court as you can’t sign a contract to get attacked.

1. If you don’t know what you are getting into, don’t get into it. This is a very simple idea.
your words. They contradict the following of what you said:

If you don’t think you can, then pay someone else to explain it.
Fact: You don’t know whether this someone is truthful himself, you don’t know if what he says about the contract is true. According to 1., i should not even ask him.

If it wasn’t the law to advertise what was in your food, then the companies that did it would be making a good business choice.
Fact: you don’t know whether what they write in advertisment is true. Following that you don’t know what kind of stuff is in there. According to 1. I should not buy food.

This is exactly why people trust eachother, We trust eachother not because the goverment shows us we can, but because it makes sense if we both trust eachother.
According to 1. I should not get involved with anyone whose intentions I don’t know. According to 1, I should not trust.

If my full job is farming, and your full time job is medicine, lets trade. pretty simple. very basic societies were able to figure that one out
That requires trust. It requires it because You don’t know what I would do to you and I don’t know what kind of stuff you mix into your food or what you feed your animals with.
But as I have shown in the previous point, trust can not exist in your system.

These are the contradictions that you created. So which is it? Trusting people or not interacting with with anyone or anything that you don’t know about?

This is the first I am hearing about this. So employees are not allowed to bring rape/sexual assault cases into the public when they have these contracts?

Why would anyone work for these companies then? Isn’t this against basic civil rights?

@RedPowerLady
I find it highly unsettling that some people advocate a situation where I could go into a shoe shop, sign a contract to buy a pair of shoes which I would assume to be normal purchasing contract and unknowingly give the sales man permission to plunder my bank account or shoot me in the head and that the same people then say, “well, you had it coming, should have read the contract, fool.”

@ragingloli I agree with that point. I certainly do. It seems to me that such a contract itself would violate many laws and personal rights so no one would even expect such a clause and therefore would be justified in not giving it reasonable consideration.

@RedPowerLady
Under german contract law, such clauses would be considered unethical and therefore, by default, be invalid. the same goes for clauses that are not usual for that kind of contract, such as a cell phone contract hidden within a contract to buy a new PC.
but some people seem to think that consumer protection is evil.

@jackm – You probably agree with a click to EULAS every day which may be binding you to extraordinary terms. That doesn’t mean they are enforceable, or should be interpreted by Congress to be fully enforceable whatever the cost.

A contract with blatantly unfair stipulations that one must sign in order to be employed should not be universally enforceable just because it was executed as an instrument. You can sign a contract to work for no wage, and your employer can still be prosecuted for involuntary servitude.

There was no overriding philosophical issue here. It was just a case of a few wing-nut Repugs reflexively protecting a big corporation against the consequences of its own bad behavior. Don’t enable them by looking for emeralds amongst the turds.

@jackm @proXXi
What they are doing is grossly unfair. Do you believe that a corporation should be able to do anything they want to people if they can trick them into signing away their rights?

What if she had signed away her rights that protected her from being enslaved or killed?

@benjaminlevi, are individuals responsible for their own actions and decisions at all anymore?

@benjaminlevi
What if she had signed away her rights that protected her from being enslaved or killed?
He would of course cheer on it as a great victory for predatory capitalism. And if she were killed or enslaved, he would smugly grin at her loved ones and say “idiot should have read the contract. she deserved what she got”.

@ragingloli

Just because he thinks its logical and the way government should be run, doesn’t mean he loves watching people be enslaved.

You need to learn to keep emotion out of reason, it will help you make better decisions.

@jackm
Emotions play a large roll in reason. Most neuroscientists and people working on AI believe we need emotions to make logical decisions.

Anyway rape is wrong full stop.
@proXXi Is it ok if she signed he life away unwillingly and then they killed her?

@cooolbeans
I can design a chip right now that will use logic and only logic to make decisions. Emotion may be a big part in how humans make decisions, but that doesn’t mean its right or wrong.

I know when to apply my emotions and when not to.

Some hear or read the word ‘rape’ in this story, then emotionally turn of their intellect to the deeper issues in question here.

Some people stretch to find a philosophical position where there is nothing but pecuniary self-interest.

@proXXi
Can you answer my question?

Is it ok if she signed he life away unwillingly and then they killed her?

@cooolbeans An unrealistic and irrelavant question, anyhoo:

No such contract would be legal and you know it, you’re smarter than that.

Speaking of unrealistic and irrelevant question, how come this one hasn’t been moderated? Or is the whole speech on Fluther’s quality standards a joke?

There is no stunt. Even Obama’s DoD was opposed to the amendment. Read their argument. They even mentioned it on the Huffington post, look it up. Oh and it seems to me some people need to learn about arbitration.

Here’s an alternative take on the subject:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/16/the-truth-about-the-franken-amendment/

@proXXi
So how come they allow to make it legal to have a contract were you can get raped?

@Jack_Haas, I too am very confused by the seemingly selective standards on fluther.

I hope that if asked the Moderators would submit (truthfully) that they simply havent gotten to this statement question yet. IMO it would be simpler to just allow questions in all forms. We’re grown up enough to know what is what here.

I’m curious to know what process is used to decide what substandard questions remain while others are modded or authors bounced.

@cooolbeans, oh please..

@proxxi The other day someone asked a question: “what other presidents surrounded themselves with people who openly admire marxists”. It wasn’t up for 10 minutes before someone took it down. So I thought okay, mods are human too, and some people fear controversy so much, they can be a bit overzealous. But if you go back in time you can find real aberrations. Just search for any keyword in the “Palin” “Bush” “Limbaugh” style and you’ll find a few jaw droppers.

Now that Fluther is getting real money from major players, I imagine they will be more careful about ensuring fairness in questions and a sense of tolerance for newcomers regardless of their political leanings.

@proXXi “are individuals responsible for their own actions and decisions at all anymore?”

Is rape illegal?

Wahh! I don’t like the moderators. Boo hoo. ~

For those of you who read @Jack_Haas ‘s article and still side with Franken, please explain yourselves. I really can’t understand how you do could do that.

@jackm
that article claims the following:
”It passed an amendment offered by Al Franken (D-MN) that bars any contractor with the Department of Defense from using arbitration.”

Here is the actual text of the amendment:
”Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.”

A little reminder, title VII of the ‘64 Civil Rights act prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin

”For those of you who read @Jack_Haas ‘s article and still side with Franken, please explain yourselves. I really can’t understand how you do could do that.”

Simple. The article is a piece of misinformation.

Is it a joke?

Wow, I give up. Dealing with autism is above my pay grade.

What are you talking about?
The fact is, what the article wrote was not true. You could click the link in it and read the actual amendment text. They apparently also expected the reader to not click the link and instead just take their words for it. It not only spreads misinformation, but it also thinks its readers are idiots. That is one other site one should not trust.

@Jack_Haas I’m not saying that article is false, but were it true, wouldn’t all the republicans be citing that as the reason they are against the bill, rather than “blah blah blah we don’t want the government interfering with private contracts”? This would give them some firepower, no?

@ragingloli I don’t see any inconsistency or anything in the Heritage entry that misrepresents the amendment or tries to mislead the reader. And this article’s real value is in giving a clearer picture of what arbitration is and why it is used, which can help people who are unfamiliar with the US legal system as well as the great many people who are familiar with the term but never really bothered to try and figure out how it works.

@benjaminlevi I had to go through Jon Stewart’s caricatural distortion just to hear Jeff Sessions explain the republican position. I wasn’t inconsistent with the points raised in the Heritage entry.

The Huffington Post article about the Obama administration’s rationale for “supporting gang rape” also contains republican quotes and you can agree or disagree but they aren’t as simplistic as you make them out to be.

Here’s a link, you can judge for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html

@Jack_Haas
I don’t see any inconsistency or anything in the Heritage entry that misrepresents the amendment or tries to mislead the reader.

Really?
I thought I made it crystal clear here.

”It passed an amendment offered by Al Franken (D-MN) that bars any contractor with the Department of Defense from using arbitration.”

The Article claims that the Amendment bans all Arbitration. Which simply is not true. The actual Amendment limits the Ban to a very narrow Field, namely
any Claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any Tort related to or arising out of sexual Assault or Harassment, including Assault and Battery, intentional Infliction of emotional Distress, false Imprisonment, or Negligent hiring, Supervision, or Retention.

If you can’t see any Inconsistency or anything in the Heritage entry that misrepresents the Amendment or tries to mislead the Reader., then there must be something wrong with your Eyes, because the Inconsistency is completely apparent.

You need to research your own citation more: You said “the actual amendment limits the ban to a very narrow field”. And then you cite a litany of claims that directly conflict with your definition of “narrow field”. I will focus on just the most obvious one: “intentional infliction of emotional distress”. This can be used for anything. This is probably the most popular accusation in the most ludicrous of frivolous lawsuits I’ve heard about. The way the amendment is worded can be interpreted to cover all kinds of claims, leading to what amounts to a ban of arbitration. If you read the DoD’s rationale for opposing the amendment, you’ll see they are worried about the impracticality as well.