The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Full List of Pro-Rape Senators
All Republicans, natch.

Meet The Senators Who Voted Against The Franken Amendment
 

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html
Why does Al Franken hate America?
 

What exactly is the text of the Franken Amendment? And is there any statements from politicians why they didn't vote for it?

How bout Obama's Child rape Czar....I wonder how he would have voted.....

http://www.feministpeacenetwork.org/2009/10/07/franken-amendment-significant-step-in-ending-military-culture-of-impunity-that-allows-violence-against-women-but-much-more-is-needed/

"Unfortunately, Franken’s amendment only addresses a small part of the continuing  blatant disregard for women’s human rights as a result of U.S. military actions."

Reading the Senate record on this, I can't find any logical reason or explaination why 30 Senators voted against this amendment.

http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=FloorUpdates.Home&Date=01-Oct-09

I think it's a huge reach to assume these Senators are all for the rape of women simply because they voted this down.  However, it would go a long way if the dissenting Senators would issue some sort of statement explaining their vote.

I call BS. You haven't even looked up the amendment and have no idea what it says.  Do some research before you post blathering nonsense:


Summary available here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

The full amendment reads:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111ARNtP4  (with other proposed amendments)

The amendment would forbid U.S. Contractors from requiring arbitration of many things other than rape.   Voting against the amendment doesn't mean they approve of gang raping people and locking people up in shipping containers.  To call a vote against this amendment as "pro-rape" is patently absurd and the lowest form of politics.

Furthermore, this measure has NOTHING to do with criminal prosecution of rape.  It address civil actions against the company in situations which currently allow persons an avenue for compensation through arbitration (faster, cheaper).  That isn't necessarily a bad thing, though I'm sure you could find an anecdotal case that it turned out badly (as I could find one that turned out badly in the courts).  However, if I wanted to avoid arbitration and a man or woman walked in to my office with allegations of rape and a company raised an arbitration provision as a defense, I'd file with the Courts anyway and argue that justice demands such a provision be stricken (50/50 proposition.  If the arbitration is absurd I'd refile).   

If Mr. Smiley was resolute in his effort to ensure that the victim alleging rape have access to civil courts he could have drafted a much more succinct amendment.  Instead he wanted to essentially ban mandatory arbitration in all employment disputes related to any sexual allegation (or negligent hiring, IIED, etc.).  A proposition that predictably drew a vote essentially along party lines.

He did it in an effort to force a broader agenda knowing it would force Republicans to vote no (arbitration is seen as pro business, and/or as a streamline on the process:  particularly in "allegation" torts [rape or consensual, did he say the harassing things or not?  Generally he said she said], things that took place over seas, and where jurisdiction is in dispute) .  Thus allowing the Huffington Post and the Feminist Peace Network (your unbiased source) to waive their arms around and go wharrgarbl.  Put an amendment on there specifying that any allegation of rape that results in a criminal prosecution can not be arbitrated without consent of Plaintiff's counsel and see how the vote goes, I'm guessing it does OK.

Additionally, this is Frankens first amendment.  If it was in favor of daisies and pretty skies the Republicans went have mostly voted against it.  Does that mean that hate daisies and pretty skies or want to pick on the Jr. Democrat Senator?  (the Republicans playing stupid political games)

The classification as "pro rape" is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who actually read the bill and understands the provisions.

/I'm not really concerned about the merit of the amendment, just the classification as "pro rape" and the other crap thrown out by cited unbiased sources.

I believe the "pro-rape" term is on the same level as "pro-abortion".  It applies to almost no one.

I didn't get a picture, but I saw a car a few months ago with two bumper stickers:


and

I Support the Death Penalty
- - -

Wow...just wow!

You cannot be serious. You do not see a difference?  One is legal (abortion) and the other is a felony (rape).

I cannot understand those that claim to be "pro life" can also support the death penalty. It's amusing though listening to righties strain to justify how these position are consistent.

Re-read his post. He was saying that the terms "pro-rape" and "pro-abortion" don't apply to anyone.

You need to try harder.

Meaning there should be no one "pro" either.

I shouldn't be pro-life then?  You shouldn't be "pro-Obama"? I guess no one should favor anything then under your thinking.

TU: I do not need to re-read anything. Townsend deliberately interchangeably used "pro-rape" to "pro-abortion" (instead of "pro-life" or "pro choice") as a fallacious straw man.

Nope, keep trying.  You'll get it sooner or later.

It's like he is going out of his way to deliberately miss the point...

(http://www.diggershotline.com/images/dig.jpg)

Guido:

Pro-rape would mean necessarily in favor of raping.  While a person might be against stricter rape laws or a particular amendment, it is highly unlikely that a person is actually in favor of rape.  "Let's go rape some people!"  Even people against stronger rape laws don't like rape.

pro-abortion would mean necessarily in favor of abortion.  While a person might be against banning abortion or additional restrictions on abortion, very few people would classify themselves as being "in favor" of the procedure.  "Let's get pregnant so we can have abortions!"   Even people in favor of allowing abortions generally wish to see the procedure as a last resort.

He was poking fun at the use of verbage.  Same reason you call yourself "pro-life" instead of "anti-choice", which would be just as accurate of a term when framed by your opposition. 
- - -

I assume this will offend you, but it is not my intent.  But please be aware that since Obama has been elected you have begun making arguments along the same line as FOTD.  They are ideological and generally blind to reason.  I know you don't like Obama's policies and the way many things are swinging at the moment, but I also know you can rationally argue your points in a persuasive manner.

You've always been straight forward and confrontational, but until recently you made damn good points.  Now it seems petty and I'm not sure you are aware of it.  I'm really just trying to give you a heads up . . . not trying to be an donkey.

Sorry.

Ok, I'll bite.

So the assumption is that a fetus is a human life, taking human life is wrong, hence no abortion allowed.

Why the death penalty but not abortion?  The fetus has no choice, has done nothing wrong and is totally unaware of the decision making process wherein its fate is decided.  A murderer however, chose to commit his crime, was aware of the consequences and was presumably capable of understanding the proceedings.

We hold children and adults to different standards and expectations, it's an extension of that idea.

Sensible?  Debatable?  Eh?  Not total idiocy, anyway.

Prolifers usually make the distinction that abortion is the termination of innocent human life while the death penalty is is the termination of someone who is guilty and thus someone who deserves to have their life terminated. Nothing hypocritical about being prolife and being for the death penalty, they are two separate issues.

Pro-abortion is the favoring or supporting legalized abortion. So the term pro-abortion/pro-abortionist is an accurate term to describe someone who supports legalized abortion..

Wrong.  Favoring the lawful choice that a woman currently has is called just that.  Pro-choice.

I wonder how long it will be before we see James on the evening news.

Then someone against abortion is:   Anti-womens' rights. 

Absolutely a true statement.  Currently abortion is a right given to women in the United States.  Being anti-abortion then necessarily means you are against at least one right bestowed upon women.   Thus, a "pro-lifer" is accurately called "anti-womens' rights".   But the term has a larger connotation to it, so it isn't really accurate.

Same with "pro-abortion".  The connotation is that the person is in favor of the procedure and not just the underlying legal right.  The term does not accurately reflect the viewpoints of many, many people (a slim majority of Americans) who support the legal right of abortion but believe it to be the least favored option available.   The connotation of a term is important.

Of course you understand this.  But using terms with a strong negative connotation better serves your purpose.  That's why people against abortion are "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion".   It may be semantics, but "just semantics" is a fallacious notion.  What you call something both matters in the debate and reflects your viewpoint (and bias). 

That's why we used to conquer "jungles" and now save "rain forests."  We used to drain "swamps" and now we "preserve wetlands".  There are no longer retarded people or idiots, we have various "challenged" and "special" groups (which have now become derogative terms in their own right).   

- - -

And I understand the rationale between pro-life and pro-death penalty . . . but it is still amusing.   ;D

Which is probably the ultimate fate of any politically correct term.  As it gets common usage, it acquires the same negative connotations as the original term.  Eventually, a lot of words become offensive to someone for a marginally good reason.

I find the use of connotation offensive

I don't understand the rationale there at all. The state of Texas put an innocent man to death a few years back. Seems worse to me than abortion. At least with the latter there's a compelling "don't tell me what to do with my body" argument.

If it's a religious argument (which it seems to mainly be), it makes even less sense to be anti-choice and pro-death. ;)

BTW, binding arbitration is pretty evil when there's no recourse to the courts. Moreover, it's rather expensive in most cases.(Wireless carriers have had significant trouble enforcing binding arbitration clauses in their contracts for that reason)

I'll call that and raise you your use of offensive as offensive.   ;D

How hard is it to understand that a small fetus inside a womans body has no choice what their mother makes? That fetus is in total control of whatever decision the mother makes for them, whether to give birth or abort. 

Whereas a person convicted of murder (and lets assume he truly is guilty) was in total control of his actions, knew what he/she was doing, knew it was wrong, yet went through with it anyways.  I say let them die, why not?  If someone brutally killed a family member of yours, would you want them to live in prison with the everyday comforts of life (books, magazines, tv and food) while your relative suffered tremendous pain and agony?  I know I certainly wouldnt.  Just my two cents, but I dont find it too hard to understand how someone can be both pro life and pro death penalty.  In fact, many many people I associate with are in fact just that, pro life and pro death penalty.  Whether that is right, wrong or indifferent doesnt matter.  It just isnt too hard to understand!

I am the offensive coordinator and find you both offensive.

Thank you for being you. I mean, whatever would the internets be without a a grand arbitrator of forum posting content.

I find that offensive

ANOTHER STEWART CLASSIC!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts


It, simply put, is beyond belief in a civilized society that 30 Senators -- all Republicans -- voted in favor of rape, gang rape, in the precipitating case that caused Franken to try and end governmental sanctioning of this outrage.

Don't ever forget that 30 GOP Senators voted for rape and even gave floor speeches "defending" their vote.

It's beyond disgraceful. It's 30 U.S. Senators who are accessories to a brutal crime. And main stream media (MSM)
are culpable as well....

It, simply put, is beyond belief that you could read this whole thread and still have that opinion.  I think.

You think he read the thread?

Ack, silly me...

yes

Looks like Franken was trying to give contract workers working on govt projects closer to the same protections under the law that they would get here in the states.  I still don't see where the "added" items could not be considered harassment or assault.

OK is not OK:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/10/oklahoma-abortion-law-like-undressing.html


" Anonymous said...
The unborn are not babies and they are not children, they are fetuses or they are zygotes. Since they are unborn, they do not have constitutional rights. They never have and they never will. The mother's rights always trumps those of the unborn.

This law is clearly an invasion of privacy and clearly unconstitutional, which means no doctor has to follow the new law.

As far as the ridiculous claim that the law is written by men, as if it were some kind of conspiricy against women, then women have only themselves to blame.

RUN FOR OFFICE LADIES! You control more than 50% of the vote, so it's your fault there are so many men in charge of the federal, state and local governments!

Kevin Schmidt "

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2W6mYUyyE[/youtube]

Have any of these 30 Senators explained their vote?

WOW!

Republicans Are Shocked The Public Is Mad At Them For Voting Against Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/13/republicans-franken-shocked/

GOP Senators are out of touch with the American People and reality.

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

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html

Dated material...


However, to give credit where a "little credit" is due, 9 other NeoConfederates voted for the Franken Amendment http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308.

Wanna hear a joke?

Compassionate conservative.

The question on abortion stretches beyond  the capacity of the human mind.  The amendment fabricates the illusion of where and when the fetus becomes a life form and some power, that we cannot define tells the fetus that “This body is yours”.  We can regress back to the builders of the great pyramids or life froms from an alien gift or created by an unnamed God of the Jew, but we find throughout history many of those born out of wedlock have possessed powers that give reason for much speculation.

I have sat as an arbitrator only to evaluate later how my own preconceived prejudices determined the outcome.  As an innocent by stander I paid for an abortion and even that still dwells on my mind as I was a part of depriving  what could have been a living person their place in life.

The amendment is only opening the door of the courts again for an interpretation in an system that is overwrought with constant challenges reduced to even a single word. Regardless it requires deep thought of both pro and con. 
   

You are quite right FOTD...forgive me