Is Jeff Sessions' Face Red Today?

If you're arguing about this setting a precedent - the precedent has already been set, which is the point that Sen. Franken was making in the above quote. The argument could be used for whatever - like cutting highway funds to states that don't raise the drinking age. They did that, long before Sen. Franken did.

This is nothing new. There's no precedent being set - just a standard argument that politicians have been using forever. About this specific amendment, do you have any problem with it?

No, you are wrong. The precedent he specifically mentioned was a government to government issue. This is a gov to business issue. It is an expansion and intrusion and Sessions was right to call him on it.

So, you're arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to put any restrictions into contracts with private companies?

That's a rather terrifying thought.

Please point to any place where I actually wrote that.
 
No, you are wrong. The precedent he specifically mentioned was a government to government issue. This is a gov to business issue. It is an expansion and intrusion and Sessions was right to call him on it.

So, you're arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to put any restrictions into contracts with private companies?

That's a rather terrifying thought.

Please point to any place where I actually wrote that.

Well, then what exactly did you mean, if not that?
 
So, you're arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to put any restrictions into contracts with private companies?

That's a rather terrifying thought.

Please point to any place where I actually wrote that.

Well, then what exactly did you mean, if not that?

So you admit I did not write that and your characterization was false and misleading.

Governemnt should not dictate how companies do business in their contracts. They can specify product or service. They can specify delivery and timing. They can specify cost. But not things external to the actual transaction. And this bill clearly was that.
 
Please point to any place where I actually wrote that.

Well, then what exactly did you mean, if not that?

So you admit I did not write that and your characterization was false and misleading.
Nope. Notice the "?" on the end of my statement. That means I was waiting for further clarification.

Governemnt should not dictate how companies do business in their contracts. They can specify product or service. They can specify delivery and timing. They can specify cost. But not things external to the actual transaction. And this bill clearly was that.
If a company wants to make a contract with the government, why shouldn't the government be able to dictate terms?
 
Well, then what exactly did you mean, if not that?

So you admit I did not write that and your characterization was false and misleading.
Nope. Notice the "?" on the end of my statement. That means I was waiting for further clarification.

Governemnt should not dictate how companies do business in their contracts. They can specify product or service. They can specify delivery and timing. They can specify cost. But not things external to the actual transaction. And this bill clearly was that.
If a company wants to make a contract with the government, why shouldn't the government be able to dictate terms?

They can. On all the items I mentioned.
 
So you admit I did not write that and your characterization was false and misleading.
Nope. Notice the "?" on the end of my statement. That means I was waiting for further clarification.

Governemnt should not dictate how companies do business in their contracts. They can specify product or service. They can specify delivery and timing. They can specify cost. But not things external to the actual transaction. And this bill clearly was that.
If a company wants to make a contract with the government, why shouldn't the government be able to dictate terms?

They can. On all the items I mentioned.

Why shouldn't they be able to dictate any terms they like? If I make a contract with someone, I can dictate whatever terms I like. Why shouldn't the government have the same rights as me?
 
so congress just voted to overturn the dispute resolution / arbitration clause in all these folks employment contracts......declaring them null and void ....let me guess what the employer will do next.....
 
Nope. Notice the "?" on the end of my statement. That means I was waiting for further clarification.


If a company wants to make a contract with the government, why shouldn't the government be able to dictate terms?

They can. On all the items I mentioned.

Why shouldn't they be able to dictate any terms they like? If I make a contract with someone, I can dictate whatever terms I like. Why shouldn't the government have the same rights as me?

They have the power to nationalize the business if they like. That makes the relationship fundamentally different from two private parties.
 
They can. On all the items I mentioned.

Why shouldn't they be able to dictate any terms they like? If I make a contract with someone, I can dictate whatever terms I like. Why shouldn't the government have the same rights as me?

They have the power to nationalize the business if they like. That makes the relationship fundamentally different from two private parties.

What gives them that power?
 
Al Franken makes rape illegal again
He plugged the Bush bastards 'rape is legal' loophole

Link

Excerpt:
After operating largely under the radar during his first few months in office, Al Franken is beginning to make political ripples. On Tuesday night, he got his first piece of legislation passed by the Senate via roll call vote. The amendment stopped federal funding for those defense contractors who used mandatory arbitration clauses to deny victims of assault the right to bring their case to court. It passed by a 68-30 margin with nine Republicans joining each voting Democrat. And in the immediate aftermath, Franken was granted the chance to revel, ever so slightly, in his victory. "The story came to my attention of Jamie Leigh Jones who, when she was 19, went to Iraq to work for Chenery's KBR and she was put in the barracks with 400 men and was sexually harassed," Franken said after the vote. "She complained. But they didn't do anything about it. She was drugged and gang raped and they locked her up in a shipping container. She tried to sue KBR and they said you have a mandatory arbitration clause in your contract. She tried to fight back and said this is ridiculous. She took it to court and they have been fighting her for three years." "This bill would make it so that anybody in business with the Department of the Defense can't do this," he concluded emphatically. "They can't have mandatory arbitration on issues like assault and battery."
 
Meet the pro-rape GOP senators


Link

Alexander (R-TN) is pro-rape.
Barrasso (R-WY) is pro-rape.
Bond (R-MO) is pro-rape.
Brownback (R-KS) is pro-rape.
Bunning (R-KY) is pro-rape.
Burr (R-NC) is pro-rape.
Chambliss (R-GA) is pro-rape.
Coburn (R-OK) is pro-rape.
Cochran (R-MS) is pro-rape.
Corker (R-TN) is pro-rape.
Cornyn (R-TX) is pro-rape.
Crapo (R-ID) is pro-rape.
DeMint (R-SC) is pro-rape.
Ensign (R-NV) is pro-rape.
Enzi (R-WY) is pro-rape.
Graham (R-SC) is pro-rape.
Gregg (R-NH) is pro-rape.
Inhofe (R-OK) is pro-rape.
Isakson (R-GA) is pro-rape.
Johanns (R-NE) is pro-rape.
Kyl (R-AZ) is pro-rape.
McCain (R-AZ) is pro-rape.
McConnell (R-KY) is pro-rape.
Risch (R-ID) is pro-rape.
Roberts (R-KS) is pro-rape.
Sessions (R-AL) is pro-rape.
Shelby (R-AL) is pro-rape.
Thune (R-SD) is pro-rape.
Vitter (R-LA) is pro-rape.
Wicker (R-MS) is pro-rape.

ADDENDUM: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:
 
kind of surprising this thread hasn't been moved to the Lame Zone because it shows the pro-rape stance of some of the GOP!
 

Forum List

Back
Top