The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape-Nuts
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

don't know what this is about BUT #2 taa daa

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

son of a bitch



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 06:29PM by bloody blisters.

how very gallant of you. You sir are a true gentleman

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

One of the best Jon Stewart pieces ever.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Typical spin. Thanks for making the point again as to how the MSM reports on issues like this.

She should sue anyway and make the contractor defend it's actions there - they could counter her filing, but she would make the point. The contract said that contractors had to take issues to mediation/arbitration. It wasn't specifically about rape. The issue was brought up because of the rape and how it was handled, but the bill Franken proposed was pretty much unenforceable.

Funny - the DOD and the Obama administration was ALSO against this.

Why Did The DoD, And The White House, Oppose The Franken Rape Amendment?
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php

Quote

...
The Department of Defense sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to vote no on the amendment, according to the Huffington Post.

The department 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.

The department suggests that "it may be more effective" to seek a law that would prohibit the clauses in any business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction.

The White House does say it supports "the intent of the amendment," spokesman Tommy Vietor told TPM.

Vietor also said the White House is working with legislators to rework the amendment "to make sure it is enforceable."

The Senate legislation, part of a defense appropriations bill, must still be merged with a House bill before it can be signed.
...

I am sure if you asked the other Senators that voted against the amendment they would have answered the same. Funny how they failed to mention the administration was against the amendment also.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

She's been trying to sue for almost 5 years now, dumbass.

And KBR has been stonewalling their ass off. The DoD has to be against it, since they'd loose all their favorite MIC vendors.

And now there are 40 other KBR/other contractor women registering similar complaints.

BTW, your quote re: the adminstration points out THIER SUPPORT, regardless of how poorly your lameass right-wing's source writes headlines.

Oh and look who pops up, wayyyyyyyyy back in 1997:

"Since Jones alleged she was gang raped in 2005, while KBR was still a Halliburton subsidiary, her case is covered by an extralegal Halliburton dispute-resolution program implemented under then-CEO Dick Cheney in 1997. The program has all the hallmarks of the Cheney White House's penchant for secrecy. While Halliburton declared the program's aim was to reduce costly and lengthy litigation (and limit possible damage awards in the process), in practice it meant that employees like Jones signed away their constitutional right to a jury trial--and agreed to have any disputes heard in a private arbitration hearing without hope of appeal. (While two lower courts declared the tactic illegal, in 2001, the Texas Supreme Court overturned those rulings.)" ( I guess there's a benefit to registering a company in the state of Texas, huh)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

Enjoy the sordid reading, dumbass. Sorry, Breitbart didn't cover the story.

BTW, the 30 Senators voting AGAINST the amendment (every one of them Republican) came up with all sorts of bizarre and bullshit reasons why--few of them mentioned enforcement as an issue. Go watch all the youtubes of their bullshit and educate yourself on Republican tomfoolery 2009-style. It's amusing, I promise. If it werent so fucking evil.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 11:32PM by fairfaxdude.

Among the 68 YEA votes for the amendment were the following Republicans:
Collins
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchinson
LeMieux
Lugar
Murkowski
Snowe
Voinovich

They should be congratulated.

Of the 30 NAY Repub votes, only McCain stands out with any remote statesmanlike credentials (and he for some strange reason has a horrible track record on veteran bills/rights) The rest are pretty much just partisan hacks (the likes of DeMint, Kyl, Bunning, Sessions, and Ensign--you get the picture.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

Yes, well your blatant partisanship notwithstanding - maybe these folks should read their contracts before they sign them, huh? Now, the jackasses that raped her should be drawn and quartered - in your story does it mention anything about what Halliburton actually offered to do when she brought the issue to them?

Quote

...
Leamon, who retained a lawyer only two weeks ago, is weighing her options.

KBR attorney Celia Ballí, responding to a letter from Leamon's lawyer, wrote in a letter dated March 17, "The Company takes Ms. Leamon's allegations very seriously and has and will continue to cooperate with the proper law enforcement authorities in the investigation of her allegations to the extent possible." Ballí noted that the matter has been turned over to the CID and said that Leamon has been "afforded with counseling and referral services through the Company's Employee Assistance Program." Ballí wrote in the letter that there are "inaccuracies" in the description Leamon has put forward regarding her treatment after the alleged sexual assault. "Therefore, the Company requests that you fully investigate all the facts alleged by Ms. Leamon as the Company intends to pursue all available remedies should false statements be publicized."

Such "investigation" may prove difficult for her attorney. In the next sentence, the company says it is "not in a position to release any personnel or investigative records regarding Ms. Leamon's allegations at this time." In response to a request for comment on this story, a company spokesperson wrote in an e-mail that Leamon's "allegations are currently under investigation by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Therefore, KBR cannot comment on the specifics of the allegations or investigation." The spokesperson added, "Any allegation of sexual harassment or assault is taken seriously and investigated thoroughly." The trouble, however, is that "appropriate law enforcement authorities" have not proved willing to address this type of crime committed by contractors in Iraq.

For her part, Leamon can't quite call herself a victim yet. In the course of several conversations over several days, she never once says the word "victim" out loud. Let alone "rape." Let alone "gang rape."

She simply describes what happened, moving through the course of events as if this had happened to someone else, as if the recitation of details were an act of contrition she was compelled to perform.
...

Oh, I see it did. Let's see - it happened overseas - not necessarily on a military base. If it did occur on the base, then the CID personnel (who appear to have been involved) should be looking into the case, and putting forward criminal charges in a military setting. If the perpetrators were other contractor personnel, then you have to question what their legal status was in the other country - if it was based on military basing, then the military should have jurisdiction. In some cases it might be the host country if civilian law applied. Part of the article is a big wah from the media since the investigators wouldn't release any information - hmm - not like they are required to in an on-going investigation.

Folks need to make sure they are aware of the legal status they are placing themselves in when they sign a contract. What happened was horrible, but that doesn't mean that suddenly Halliburton or these other contract companies are the big bad wolf because they are following their own legal rules, and the victims aren't happy with that. That is what lawyers are for, and hopefully they will get the issues fixed. The article also makes it clear, this isn't just isolated to Halliburton.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

All she wants is her day in court against her rapists. Simple.

I don't think shes asking for anything that would hurt Halliburtons $16B + contracts.

You're not a lawyer, so stop acting like you are. You're just a big over-posting internet douchebag, after all. You posting legal advice to the woman is fucking offensive. Stop.

You're merely a judgmental, partisan hack, and you clearly love the cock. Im sorry Gravis PWNED you tonight--but transferring your hatred and embarrasment about your failed FFXU affair onto THIS subject is just wrong.

Go back to playing with Snowball's ass. (Sorry, graymoose)

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 11:56PM by fairfaxdude.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the best Jon Stewart pieces ever.


Why was it one of his "best" pieces FF?

I wasn't posting legal advice, merely pointing out she had options, glad her lawyer was working on it, and as usual, Franken had his head up his ass and shouldn't be writing any form of legislation. But hey, he is a Senator now ... oooh.

Seems you have no good answers, so out comes the man-love defense. Sorry your article didn't clearly make your "superior" point for you. Maybe you will STFU when you don't have anything to add other than your uninformed opinion.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2009 11:56PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter, do you ever give up? You don't have a clue but keep on rambling like a demented old man.

Just stop.

Nice attempt to deflect your own PWNAGE.

You clearly FAIL.

I hear Cheney posts here as "COCKMONSTER". PM him for further information as to how you might be of service.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

ASVAB Waiver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter, do you ever give up? You don't
> have a clue but keep on rambling like a demented
> old man.
>
> Just stop.

Do you ever stop being a troll? No, guess not. Seriously.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice attempt to deflect your own PWNAGE.
>
> You clearly FAIL.
>
> I hear Cheney posts here as "COCKMONSTER". PM him
> for further information as to how you might be of
> service.

Hey Kibbles, seriously, that is your best defense of your fail? LOL.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

ASVAB Waiver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter, do you ever give up? You don't
> have a clue but keep on rambling like a demented
> old man.
>
> Just stop.


Reggie feels its his mission in life to support firms like Halliburton, and people like Cheney, against all allegations. Never mind the story, or the facts--his favored cocks and COCKS,Inc. can do no wrong.

He lost the plot a LONGGGGG time ago. Demented is a nice word for him.

Edit: Now watch him attempt a thread derail with more stupid shit about reality TV and Soap Operas. Seriously....LOL

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 12:06AM by fairfaxdude.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ASVAB Waiver Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Registered Voter, do you ever give up? You
> don't
> > have a clue but keep on rambling like a
> demented
> > old man.
> >
> > Just stop.
>
>
> Reggie feels its his mission in life to support
> firms like Halliburton, and people like Cheney,
> against all allegations. Never mind the story, or
> the facts--his favored cocks and COCKS,Inc. can do
> no wrong.
>
> He lost the plot a LONGGGGG time ago. Demented is
> a nice word for him.

Yes Kibbles. Nice of you to use the man-love defense and appeal to your troll friend. What's the matter, no football on for you to stare at sweaty man-ass tonight?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you ever stop being a troll? No, guess not.
> Seriously.



No, because striking your nerves is too much fun. It's not my fault you were kicked out of the Navy, had multiple Captain's masts, but come on here and talk like a big shot.


From the vast number of posts you have, it looks like you have a lot to say. It seems like you don't have anyone to share your wisdom with in real life, so you have an outlet here on FFXU.

Yeah, I think we figured out who has the obsessions here Kibbles.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

LOL Do you actually READ your own posts?

Irony, thy name is Reggie.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

RV Troll Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, because striking your nerves is too much fun.
> It's not my fault you were kicked out of the Navy,
> had multiple Captain's masts, but come on here and
> talk like a big shot.
>
>
> From the vast number of posts you have, it looks
> like you have a lot to say. It seems like you
> don't have anyone to share your wisdom with in
> real life, so you have an outlet here on FFXU.

Just because you post under numerous non-registered names so no one knows how many times you do troll here. As for your facts, you have been proven a liar as you have no "facts" to back up whatever it is you want to insinuate. I am sure Kibbles will be happy to meet up with you and share stories to "get me" on while you and he sit in a dark corner somewhere.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL Do you actually READ your own posts?
>
> Irony, thy name is Reggie.

Do you ever say anything meaningful Kibbles? Really? The answer to that is No.

There is no irony there. Just the truth.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

For the non-naval types among us, what's a "Captain's Mast"?

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL Do you actually READ your own posts?
>
> Irony, thy name is Reggie.

BTW kibbles - if you notice I posted a response to the article. You are the one that decided to attack my opinion and defend the OP. I was not here attacking you - you took that on yourself.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I am sure kibbles will appreciate your apology.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince's Crazy Brother Locked in the Attic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the non-naval types among us, what's a
> "Captain's Mast"?


Long story short: It's a form of disciplinary action when you fuck up. It can ruin your career. Registered Voter has several Captain's Masts, that is why he was kicked out of the Navy.

Yes, that's it, I was kicked out Troll. You got me. Now move along.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, that's it, I was kicked out Troll. You got
> me. Now move along.


You have hinted that you didn't finish your service, I take it you didn't ETS.

So what were you kicked out for? Disciplinary problems? Couldn't meet weight standards? Mental disorder discharge?

cool off with the crisp refreshing taste of Dr. Pepper. with its 23 flavors you wont believe its diet.

That's a very handsomely designed logo... but unlike Coca-Cola logos, it doesn't actually make me thirsty.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 11:25PM by Alias.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical spin. Thanks for making the point again as
> to how the MSM reports on issues like this.
>
>

Jon Stewart is not MSM. He's on COMEDY CENTRAL.

Honestly, RV, when you make these comments, you really do sound like someone who spends a little too much time listening to your preferred media outlet. Seriously. Jon Stewart is a comedian. He's not another example of the lefty liberal plot to institute socialism. I swear, he's not.



-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

That same label should be applied to folks like Limbaugh then. He himself says he is an entertainer. So we should just go by those labels they give themselves?

He is a comedian - and they have polls showing people trust his take on the news over the news outlets. That should tell you something. His dealing with this issue was very much to the left. I watch his show quite often - sometimes I laugh, and then sometimes I laugh and go "oh, that was calculated..."

The MSM part was Campbell Brown's part in his story.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 03:43AM by Registered Voter.

I know that this is the newest argument from Roger Ailes, that Obama cannot differentiate between reporting and entertaintment.


But Fox News Channel never changes their logo from "news" to "entertainment" at any point throughout the day.

At what point do they stop being a news channel and transition into an entertainment channel???????

And yes, if polls show that people take a comedian who's show comes on after "My Secret Girlfriend" and reruns of "Reno 911" more seriously than the news, yes, that should tell you something.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 04:07AM by Thurston Moore.

Probably about the same time CNN goes to Larry King or Nancy Grace, or MSNBC goes to Maddow, or Olbermann. It is pretty easy to discern on all the cable channels which is which.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Probably about the same time CNN goes to Larry
> King or Nancy Grace, or MSNBC goes to Maddow, or
> Olbermann. It is pretty easy to discern on all the
> cable channels which is which.


I never heard any of those arguments about CNN and MSNBC and the MSM being shadows of Fox until about the last 9 or 10 months.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

RV is a total douchebag for trying to defend KBR here.

what a db Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV is a total douchebag for trying to defend KBR
> here.

bingo

And why is it no one here knows what Socialism is? It is such a bogus claim about Government spending for the people (as opposed to corporations).

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Stewart propping up Al Franken. Big
> surprise!
>
> Socialists don't care about women or blacks or
> anyone, for that matter, except themselves.
>
> They are arrogant people who, while laughing
> at the concept of God, pretend to understand
> the entire universe. They are a collective,
> malevolent God and if you disagree with their
> "intelligent design" for the "globe" (remember,
> they are VERY smart) you will be ridiculed,
> dismissed as insignificant, labeled a racist and
> targeted as an obstacle to progress.

Good for you, Alias. It sure was easy to just call Stewart and Franken socialists, ridicule them and dismiss them as insignificant. The rest of your pukeage was incoherent. "Collective, malevolent God"? WTF?

As a woman (????), one would think you'd have the slightest empathy for what Jamie Leigh Jones, Dawn Leamon, and dozens of other women have gone through as KBR/Halliburton employees, raped and abused by THEIR OWN co-workers, and the stonewalling they've received from KBR AND the DoJ. Sounds more like 1) you just don't give a shit or 2) Your need to call "socialism" at every turn rules your mind.

Now STFU and go back to yakking about "beaners".

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a db Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RV is a total douchebag for trying to defend
> KBR
> > here.
>
> bingo
>
> And why is it no one here knows what Socialism is?
> It is such a bogus claim about Government
> spending for the people (as opposed to
> corporations).

RV would argue with roadkill if it meant he could avoid his batshit-crazy wife for a few more hours.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Stewart propping up Al Franken. Big
> surprise!
>
> Socialists don't care about women or blacks or
> anyone, for that matter, except themselves.
>
> They are arrogant people who, while laughing
> at the concept of God, pretend to understand
> the entire universe. They are a collective,
> malevolent God and if you disagree with their
> "intelligent design" for the "globe" (remember,
> they are VERY smart) you will be ridiculed,
> dismissed as insignificant, labeled a racist and
> targeted as an obstacle to progress.


LOL...god! Biggest joke in the universe! Ha-ha...god! Oh I forgot...hardy-har-har! god..geeze..thats funny!

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 11:28AM by Vince(1).

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what a db Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RV is a total douchebag for trying to defend
> KBR
> > here.
>
> bingo
>
> And why is it no one here knows what Socialism is?
> It is such a bogus claim about Government
> spending for the people (as opposed to
> corporations).

Note, I wasn't defending KBR. KBR didn't rape those women - some other GUYS did it. Those guys need to be taken to court, and based on what I read, there is a criminal investigation being pursued by the proper authorities. So this is a lot more about suing KBR then it is about having the rape suspects prosecuted - that already appears to be going on under whatever authority it belongs, military, or civilian overseas, etc. In either case, the rapists need to be punished (happening) and there should be a clause in ALL contracts that deals with issues like that. Did KBR fail in providing adequate protection for those women? Absolutely. That is what the mediation is about.

You all are douchebags for falling for the story in the way it was presented. Did Campbell Brown do an in-depth report on the issue itself? Had ANY of you heard of the story prior to her dramatic notation of how the Senators voted against the amendment? And if you did hear of it, did you know all the particulars? Doubtful. Your reaction was exactly as it was intended - media presents, righteous indignation, and then of course there is no other explanation that would make sense.

The crime was heinous and the perpetrators deserve to go to jail for a long time. Hopefully the investigation by the proper authorities will bear that out. If the women hire good lawyers and go to mediation, they will undoubtedly get a generous settlement, and KBR should agree to help them with any medical expenses related to the issue. Is that defending KBR? No.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> maybe these folks should read
> their contracts before they sign them, huh?

> Folks need to make sure they are aware of the
> legal status they are placing themselves in when
> they sign a contract.

>What happened was horrible,
> but that doesn't mean that suddenly Halliburton or
> these other contract companies are the big bad
> wolf because they are following their own legal
> rules, and the victims aren't happy with that.

> The article also makes
> it clear, this isn't just isolated to Halliburton.

Of course you weren't defending KBR/Halliburton. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth.

Un-fucking-believable. Seriously.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> maybe these folks should read
> their contracts before they sign them, huh?

GANG RAPE. It wasn't someone pinching her ass and calling her "hot cakes," it was GANG RAPE.

It'd be like a cell phone company writing into their service contracts that their techs can murder your pet and you can't sue them. Then, when AT&T kills your dog, they say, "Sorry, it's written into your contract. Maybe you should have read it."

Wait. Actually, it's nothing like that, because we're talking about GANG RAPE.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Registered Voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > maybe these folks should read
> > their contracts before they sign them, huh?
>
> GANG RAPE. It wasn't someone pinching her ass and
> calling her "hot cakes," it was GANG RAPE.
>
> It'd be like a cell phone company writing into
> their service contracts that their techs can
> murder your pet and you can't sue them. Then,
> when AT&T kills your dog, they say, "Sorry, it's
> written into your contract. Maybe you should have
> read it."
>
> Wait. Actually, it's nothing like that, because
> we're talking about GANG RAPE.


I am sure the contract didn't say - "If you are GANG RAPED then for sure, this contract means you cannot sue us". The contract most likely said any legal disputes (and this issue is not a criminal issue AGAINST the contracting company) must be settled in mediation, and if no conclusion is reached there, then this is your recourse, yada yada yada. The CRIMINAL issue is being pursued against the folks that actually committed the rape. But if this was ONLY a criminal issue, then the mediation issue wouldn't even be a question - correct? They are wanting to SUE Halliburton or whoever over the fact that they were raped. They are not trying to charge Halliburton or KBR with raping them. Get it? Two completely different issues - criminal versus civil. No one has denied the criminal aspects of this, and the contract is not stopping criminal charges being pursued against gang rape perpetrators. I suspect what is really going on is that when they went to sue KBR and found out they had to go through mediation (per their contract since it was the civil part of the problem) that they figured they would not get much money out of them for negligence.

As far as the criminals that GANG RAPED the woman(women) - they should have their nuts cut off, and be required to pay restitution for the rest of their lives. Seems like she would have a better civil case against those guys once the criminal process is completed. If they sit at the table with KBR, I am sure they will get a nice settlement out of it. What more were they supposed to get? Did KBR set them up to be gang raped? Sounds like some of the supervisors there were jack-asses, she should probably sue them as well if she isn't already.

No company is required to release information regarding private information, and the criminal investigation is on-going, so I doubt they will be releasing much information either. I would defend any company on those grounds.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> I am sure the contract didn't say - "If you are
> GANG RAPED then for sure, this contract means you
> cannot sue us". The contract most likely said any
> legal disputes (and this issue is not a criminal
> issue AGAINST the contracting company) must be
> settled in mediation, and if no conclusion is
> reached there, then this is your recourse, yada
> yada yada. The CRIMINAL issue is being pursued
> against the folks that actually committed the
> rape. But if this was ONLY a criminal issue, then
> the mediation issue wouldn't even be a question -
> correct? They are wanting to SUE Halliburton or
> whoever over the fact that they were raped. They
> are not trying to charge Halliburton or KBR with
> raping them. Get it? Two completely different
> issues - criminal versus civil. No one has denied
> the criminal aspects of this, and the contract is
> not stopping criminal charges being pursued
> against gang rape perpetrators. I suspect what is
> really going on is that when they went to sue KBR
> and found out they had to go through mediation
> (per their contract since it was the civil part of
> the problem) that they figured they would not get
> much money out of them for negligence.
>
> As far as the criminals that GANG RAPED the
> woman(women) - they should have their nuts cut
> off, and be required to pay restitution for the
> rest of their lives. Seems like she would have a
> better civil case against those guys once the
> criminal process is completed. If they sit at the
> table with KBR, I am sure they will get a nice
> settlement out of it. What more were they supposed
> to get? Did KBR set them up to be gang raped?
> Sounds like some of the supervisors there were
> jack-asses, she should probably sue them as well
> if she isn't already.
>
> No company is required to release information
> regarding private information, and the criminal
> investigation is on-going, so I doubt they will be
> releasing much information either. I would defend
> any company on those grounds.




You are an evil douchebag asshole. You defend rapists because of some legal paper.


Do you beat your wife?

Fox News Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are an evil douchebag asshole. You defend
> rapists because of some legal paper.

Explain again how KBR, the company, is criminally responsible for actually performing the gang rape in question.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 03:12PM by Registered Voter.

I don't talk to people that defend rapists. You must have a deep pathological hate for women.

Right, you have no answer. Now please STFU.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, you have no answer. Now please STFU.


You defend rape. You beat women and got kicked out of the Navy. STFU

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course you weren't defending KBR/Halliburton.
> Of course nothing could be farther from the truth.
>
>
> Un-fucking-believable. Seriously.

I don't own any Halliburton or KBR stock, so what the fuck do I care about them? Nothing. I am merely pointing out the inconvenient truth that they signed a stupid contract (in this instance for sure). I seriously doubt anyone anticipated them being gang raped. But in all reality, the company did not gang rape them, the criminals did. Their supervisors can be held accountable. If KBR gave them legal advice the lawyer could be in trouble. But for CIVIL remedies they have to go through mediation. The news story or Stewart could have pointed that out - instead they chose to sensationalize a story for one purpose, and it had nothing to do with getting those women their day in court.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Fox News Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Right, you have no answer. Now please STFU.
>
>
> You defend rape. You beat women and got kicked out
> of the Navy. STFU

Unless you want to produce the records proving this, you should probably stop while you are ahead.

As far as you bring a troll, unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't own any Halliburton or KBR stock, so what
> the fuck do I care about them?


So if you did own stock you would defend the rape? Get your story straight Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Unless you want to produce the records proving
> this, you should probably stop while you are
> ahead.
>


Post your DD214 then. You said yourself you didn't finish your enlistment.

Fox News Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I don't own any Halliburton or KBR stock, so
> what
> > the fuck do I care about them?
>
>
> So if you did own stock you would defend the rape?
> Get your story straight Registered Voter.

So - as you pointed out, I am not defending the rape - thank you.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> So - as you pointed out, I am not defending the
> rape - thank you.


You defended the rape, then you said you didn't. Now you say if you owned stock you would defend the rape. Get your story straight RV.

RV, I get what you're saying; the people that actually did the raping are to blame, but not the company. This is true in a literal sense, but shouldn't a company be held accountable for the actions of their employees?

A female can sue a company for sexual harassment if one of her male co-workers doesn't take his Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar down because she finds it offensive. I think gang rape is a little bit more serious than sexual harassment.

If a company does anything less than offer full support to an employee claiming to be gang raped, including (at the very least) forcing administrative leave on the accused, then company is practically complicit in the actions of its employees. It appears that KBR not only did nothing, but actively prevented her from taking action herself.

This is not the type of corporation I want my tax dollars going to.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RV, I get what you're saying; the people that
> actually did the raping are to blame, but not the
> company. This is true in a literal sense, but
> shouldn't a company be held accountable for the
> actions of their employees?
>
> A female can sue a company for sexual harassment
> if one of her male co-workers doesn't take his
> Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar down because
> she finds it offensive. I think gang rape is a
> little bit more serious than sexual harassment.
>
> If a company does anything less than offer full
> support to an employee claiming to be gang raped,
> including (at the very least) forcing
> administrative leave on the accused, then company
> is practically complicit in the actions of its
> employees. It appears that KBR not only did
> nothing, but actively prevented her from taking
> action herself.
>
> This is not the type of corporation I want my tax
> dollars going to.

I totally agree. When they do contract reviews, or whatever they want to do for contract awards, someone from legal needs to look at this and do "what is this bullshit?" No way.

Contractors are responsible for their subs as well in how they behave.

Normally she could file for negligence against them in civil court - unfortunately her contract would normally preclude that. I believe though that if she went to mediation, and was not satisfied with the outcome, and could then prove it was unreasonable considering the circumstances, she could take them to civil court in any case. Not a happy process, but she could do it.

EDIT: Binding arbitration is fine, right up to the point where the conduct borders on the criminal side of an issue. They could always make a criminal complaint to the Justice Dept for something that went beyond standard civil arbitration.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 06:20PM by Registered Voter.

I'm really not sure Reggie wants to read this, but the rest of you can:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

Jones's case was the subject of a House Judiciary hearing in December. Right now, Jones's lawyers are awaiting a decision on whether she will get her day in court or be forced to submit to binding arbitration, which KBR is insisting on. Likewise, the company is pressuring Dawn Leamon into pursuing her claims against the company through its Dispute Resolution Program based on the contract she signed before she went to Iraq. Critics argue that the company's arbitration system allows it to minimize bad publicity and lets assailants off the hook. "
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's review. The DoJ drags their feet on all the criminal investigations( going on 5 years now), while their "contractor"KBR/Halliburton boxes in the women on the other end with BINDING arbitration. Neat, tidy, effective. Yep, just tell those bitches to STFU.

According to Reggie, however, all their legal recourses are alive and well. Sure they are, theoretically, of course. Even when CID took away Dawn Leamon's PC after she managed to get ONE email out to a state-side lawyer.

Reggie's cock-munching heroes in the Senate then get up and talk about "witch hunts against Halliburton" and " this body (the Senate) shouldn't be about legislating private company behavior". Gotta love Jeff Sessions, huh, Reggie muh man?

Now Reggie is hoisted on his own pitard for defending Halliburton, and cant' fnd a way out of his dilemma, except to continue obfuscating, over-posting, and changing the subject.

Reggie, I must say, you are a true Patriot. Yes, indeed. Overwhelmingly.

EDIT: I see Reggie is practicing being a douchebag lawyer again. What part of BINDING arbitration do you NOT get,dumbass?

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 05:25PM by fairfaxdude.

Maybe you need to read some more kibbles.

From your same source:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/houppert

Any allegations of criminal complaint can be acted upon by the Justice Department. Maybe you should follow up and ask questions even the Senators can't get answers to...

Quote

...
Obviously, US military contractors have an interest in avoiding the bad publicity that would follow if these complaints were not kept secret. With huge sums hanging in the balance--KBR has an estimated $16 billion in contracts--the stakes are high.

But such a financial incentive cannot explain why the Justice Department has failed to act. Although it has the authority to pursue criminal cases involving US military contractor employees, it has hemmed and hawed over even the tiny fraction of cases that have made their way through the maze of obstacles to land in the Justice Department's offices. Grilling Justice about these twenty-four civilian sexual assault cases, Senator Nelson demanded to know exactly how many cases Justice was pursuing--and whether there had been a single conviction. "I don't know of any convictions for sexual assault," admitted Sigal Mandelker, deputy assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. But, she stammered, "we do have active investigations...somewhere about...somewhere upwards of...somewhere between four and six, I believe is the number." (Leamon's attorney just learned that the department is initiating an investigation into her case.)
...

Perhaps if the Justice Department did it's job, this would have been taken care of a long time ago.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Here's a question for you, Reggie.

As you continue to backpedal like mad, oozing newfound concern for the victims of the case(s), let me ask you:

Suppose Jamie Leigh Jones prevails, magically, and somehow bursts through her BINDING ARBITRATION clause into a court of law. What amount would you consider reasonable for her pain, suffering, perseverance against all odds, when she wins against Halliburton? Any punitive damages?

$50?

$5,000?

$500,000?

$5,000,000?

Pick one. Since you're a lawyer, play the judge for us. Just once.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

$25M sounds like a nice round number. Hey, I would bankrupt them if it came to civil court and they were found negligent.

Not sure that would help this woman.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Well, if you were Dick Cheney (your hero) who RAN Halliburton when the BINDING ARBITRATION clause went in, and then RAN DoJ when Iraqi contracts were awarded (single-source, I might add), I'd say you'd be crying in your stock option spilt milk.

But maybe Jeff Sessions could come cuddle you up and make you feel better.

BTW, you're lying. You wouldn't give the girl a red fucking cent.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if you were Dick Cheney (your hero) who RAN
> Halliburton when the BINDING ARBITRATION clause
> went in, and then RAN DoJ when Iraqi contracts
> were awarded (single-source, I might add), I'd say
> you'd be crying in your stock option spilt milk.
>
> But maybe Jeff Sessions could come cuddle you up
> and make you feel better.
>
> BTW, you're lying. You wouldn't give the girl a
> red fucking cent.

BTW - I'm NOT lying. You don't know me for shit kibbles. I would very much award damages for shit like that if the company was liable. You need to get your head out of your ass. You can go down the Vince road if you want, and call folks liars when they pop your bubble, but sorry, you don't know shit sherlock.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Yeah, read further in the article (or at the beginning) - Leamon was assaulted by a US Soldier. She didn't report it, and it didn't make it to CID until later when she decided to go to a doctor and talk about the incident. The doctor was then compelled to file a report.

I mean, speaking hypothetically - if you were raped, would you go to your boss and complain to them, or go to the police?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 05:45PM by Registered Voter.

I think that would be entirely inconsistent with the 45,000 posts you've elucidated us with, and any thinking person knows you'd be staring daggers at Jone's attorney for the entire trial. Hating him, hating the fact that some poor girl who was "begging for it anyways" is gonna get paid, and that any red-blooded true Patriot might disagree with you.

You're despicable.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 05:47PM by fairfaxdude.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, read further in the article (or at the
> beginning) - Leamon was assaulted by a US Soldier.
> She didn't report it, and it didn't make it to CID
> until later when she decided to go to a doctor and
> talk about the incident. The doctor was then
> compelled to file a report.
>
> I mean, speaking hypothetically - if you were
> raped, would you go to your boss and complain to
> them, or go to the police?


Here we go! Let the blaming of the victim commence.

I'm speechless.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that would be entirely inconsistent with
> the 45,000 posts you've elucidated us with, and
> any thinking person knows you'd be starting
> daggers at Jone's attorney for the entire trial.
> Hating him, hating the fact that some poor girl
> who was "begging for it anyways" is gonna get
> paid, and that any red-blooded true Patriot might
> disagree with you.
>
> You're despicable.

Ok Vince.. er kibbles. Always good to point out how I have tirelessly advocated against awarding massive punitive damages for medical malpractice suits, and somehow apply that to criminal misconduct. You are pathetic.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A female can sue a company for sexual harassment
> if one of her male co-workers doesn't take his
> Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar down because
> she finds it offensive.


You've put your finger on it -- the principle of vicarious liability or respondeat superior, which is usually seen only in civil suits, can also be a basis for corporate criminal liability. http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?ArticleKey=1387

It all depends on the facts - in particular, how well or badly the employees were supervised. A contract that purported to abrogate such potential criminal liability would be void and unenforceable as against public policy, in an American court anyway.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here we go! Let the blaming of the victim
> commence.
>
> I'm speechless.

Wow, you are kind of trollish today eh?

In any case, I didn't blame anyone. I, again, merely pointed out a fact you overlooked in your tirade. In any case, wouldn't common sense tell you to report it to the proper authorities? If you just look at the glossy hardcover on this - it makes it sound like no one made any mistakes except the companies.

In any case, was the issue that Halliburton or KBR was somehow wrong? Or does it bother you that the Justice department didn't prosecute cases they should be following up on? Perhaps the Senate not voting on a bill the House already passed to allow the FBI to investigate these kinds of crimes? I mean what is it you are really angry about here kibbles?

But hey, if you are speechless, then please, do shut up lol.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Dewey, Cheatham & Howe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > A female can sue a company for sexual
> harassment
> > if one of her male co-workers doesn't take his
> > Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar down
> because
> > she finds it offensive.
>
>
> You've put your finger on it -- the principle of
> vicarious liability or respondeat superior, which
> is usually seen only in civil suits, can also be a
> basis for corporate criminal liability.
> http://www.pepperlaw.com/publications_update.aspx?
> ArticleKey=1387
>
> It all depends on the facts - in particular, how
> well or badly the employees were supervised. A
> contract that purported to abrogate such potential
> criminal liability would be void and unenforceable
> as against public policy, in an American court
> anyway.

Yeah... I don't see how it's entirely kosher to prevent someone from seeking legal recourse for an illegal act perpetrated against them.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

The problem isn't the kosher-ness of it, it's the time it would take, and the effort and money required, to break through clauses like "binding arbitration" to even get to court. The KBRs and Halliburtons of the world have massive amounts of obstacles to throw at little old you, no the least of which is an onerous Binding Arbitration clause they hung you with when everything was hunky-dory, your first day of employment.

Jones has been working for 5 years now to GET INTO court. Maybe she has a crap lawyer, who knows. Let's presume she doesn't. Even if SHE perseveres hard enough to break through their stonewalling, we all know many would give up, thus limiting the company's overall exposure. It's a numbers and obstacles game.

KBR/Halliburton employees were fucked before they got their first paycheck.

And when you get sole-source contracts from the govt in batches of $1B, keeping "issues" under nice neat secret wraps is good business. Unless you're an employee who gets gang-raped.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2009 06:56PM by fairfaxdude.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem isn't the kosher-ness of it, it's the
> time it would take, and the effort and money
> required, to break through clauses like "binding
> arbitration" to even get to court. The KBRs and
> Halliburtons of the world have massive amounts of
> obstacles to throw at little old you, no the least
> of which is an onerous Binding Arbitration clause
> they hung you with when everything was hunky-dory,
> your first day of employment.
>
> Jones has been working for 5 years now to GET INTO
> court. Maybe she has a crap lawyer, who knows.
> Let's presume she doesn't. Even if SHE perseveres
> hard enough to break through their stonewalling,
> we all know many would give up, thus limiting the
> company's overall exposure. It's a numbers and
> obstacles game.
>
> KBR/Halliburton employees were fucked before they
> got their first paycheck.
>
> And when you get sole-source contracts from the
> govt in batches of $1B, keeping "issues" under
> nice neat secret wraps is good business. Unless
> you're an employee who gets gang-raped.

Exactly.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Explain again how KBR, the company, is criminally
> responsible for actually performing the gang rape
> in question.

I don't know about being criminaly responsible for the act committed against one of their workers, but when they use a contract that binds employees to mediation and holds them from filing criminal or civil charges, and the company stands behind that in cases of GANG RAPE, that makes the company culpable in trying to bury an incident under the rug.


I understand these mediation rules in contracts, and they were meant to protect the company from frivolous lawsuits or legal charges. Actually, even that is somewhat reprehensible, it just shows they are trying to use contract law to circumvent state and federal law. But whatever, it's still widely accepted.

But when they invoke those contract stipulations to protect employees, or in the hopes of avoiding "bad publicity", that's really evil.

If they really wanted to avoid bad publicity, they would say that in these circumstances, when one employee (or several) commit a crime against another employee, their contract is void, and civil and criminal charges are in order.

Unless they are afraid of being implicated, as a company. Or, unless they just don't have the foresight to realize that by defending these people, they make it appear that they had something to do with it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The function of conservatives is not to meet every liberal program or scheme with a denunciation or a destructive counterscheme, but rather to weigh its advantages and defects, supporting the first and challenging the second. A declaration of ideological warfare against liberalism is by its nature profoundly unconservative. It meets perceived radicalism with a counterradicalism of its own.

Yes, they are "evil" for using their legal rules the way every other company does. Probably for things like flooding lakes with toxic refuse, killing animals in the name of research, etc, etc, etc. It is accepted across the board by companies that do business in every walk of life. While GANG RAPE in Iraq or Afghanistan is absolutely reprehensible, no doubt there are probably other crimes going on that are equally "evil" perpetrated by other companies every day.

If KBR is criminally culpable, then the Justice Dept is the ultimate arbiter of these disputes, especially since they have to deal with Federal Contracts. So hopefully they will get up off their ass and start investigating these issues so they can bring forth criminal charges, assuming that KBR upper management actively suppressed investigations into the allegations in a manner that is criminal and makes the company criminally liable. As a note TM, the gang rape was perpetrated by American Soldiers in at least one instance... Where did that allegation go? You would think MSM would have access to that information and could go to work on it, huh?

A couple of points:

1. What is "evil" in a world that is full of atheists who don't believe in the divine? Isn't it all just morally relative at that point? Or are we to assume demons do exist even though God does not? (not you TM, I know you believe in God)

2. Shouldn't MSM be doing a better job of covering the GANG RAPE - rather than just pulling in a "gotcha" moment? Doesn't that diminish the true seriousness of the charges? In Jon Stewart's defense, as he is a COMEDIAN, I am sure he can make murder seem funny.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Dick Cheney was once kicked out of a theater for interrupting the movie "Henry:
Portrait of a Serial Killer." He kept shouting "you fucking amateur!" at the
screen and throwing popcorn.


Dick Cheney takes candy from babies, then later gives it to diabetic babies.


After turning down an offer from Mafia Don, Cheney woke up with a horse head in
his bed. He grabbed it, held it like a teddy bear, and went back to sleep.


In a bow to conservationsists, Dick Cheney converted his SUV. It now runs on
orphans. And puppies. And orphan puppies.

Also, it gets 1 mpg city, 3 freeway.

And he never leaves the city.


At one point, Cheney considered diversifying his oil interests. He abandoned the
idea after learning that baby oil wasn't actually made from babies.


Marlon Brando shaved his head to play Col. Kurtz in order to resemble Dick
Cheney's penis. That's also why he gained 400 pounds.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 12:17AM by Alias.

Registered Voter Wrote:

I completely missed this drivel! I'll try to not let it happen again. My bad.

> A couple of points:

> 1. What is "evil" in a world that is full of
> atheists who don't believe in the divine? Isn't it
> all just morally relative at that point? Or are we
> to assume demons do exist even though God does
> not? (not you TM, I know you believe in God)

OH, here we go. Backed into an indefensible corner, here comes the "I'm a fundamentalist Christian, AND a REAL Patriot--therefore whatever backs me into my corner is wrong, since I have GOD on MY side" defense. Of course, everyone knows an "atheist" can't ever know wrong from right. Didn't YOU ALL know that too?


> 2. Shouldn't FOX NEWS be doing a better job of covering
> the GANG RAPE - rather than just publicizing Dick Cheney's every word?
>In Jon Stewart's defense, as he is a COMEDIAN, I am sure he can
> make ridiculous Jeff Sessions testimony funny.

Fixed it.

Tough weekend, Reggie? Need to talk about it? We're here for you.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

fairfaxdude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> I completely missed this drivel! I'll try to not
> let it happen again. My bad.
>
> > A couple of points:
>
> > 1. What is "evil" in a world that is full of
> > atheists who don't believe in the divine? Isn't
> it
> > all just morally relative at that point? Or are
> we
> > to assume demons do exist even though God does
> > not? (not you TM, I know you believe in God)
>
> OH, here we go. Backed into an indefensible
> corner, here comes the "I'm a fundamentalist
> Christian, AND a REAL Patriot--therefore whatever
> backs me into my corner is wrong, since I have GOD
> on MY side" defense. Of course, everyone knows an
> "atheist" can't ever know wrong from right. Didn't
> YOU ALL know that too?
>
>
> > 2. Shouldn't FOX NEWS be doing a better job of
> covering
> > the GANG RAPE - rather than just publicizing
> Dick Cheney's every word?
> >In Jon Stewart's defense, as he is a COMEDIAN, I
> am sure he can
> > make ridiculous Jeff Sessions testimony funny.
>
> Fixed it.
>
> Tough weekend, Reggie? Need to talk about it?
> We're here for you.

Kibbles.

You are definitely losing it. Maybe you shouldn't post after you have been drinking or something. "fundamental christian"? (who are you accusing of that? I am not a devout member of any religion) There was nothing of the "backed into a corner" in my post at all. I was asking a question that it appears YOU have no answer for.

Then you try to make it some form of failure for...? What exactly, pointing out the obvious? LOL. Fail on the scintillating review there kibbles. When did you first hear about the GANG RAPE again? Knowing how in-depth those MSM folks are, they were all over that story weren't they? Especially when it wasn't tied to a political issue like Franken's unenforceable amendment (as per the Justice Department).

You'll try not to let it happen again? LOL. Get over yourself - you really are as a stupid as you look, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Maybe you should pay more attention to not burning your sausage and eggs in the morning, seems the extra carbon is affecting your brain.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 10:28AM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did you first hear about the GANG
> RAPE again? Knowing how in-depth those MSM folks
> are, they were all over that story weren't they?


Say again? This coming from a guy that is a devout watcher of Fox News. Seriously, WTF?

So your troll answer is, you never knew about it.

Yeah, you got me good with that Fox News watcher comment. I am so wounded. Seriously, go play in the retard zone with your bad self.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

Registered Voter Wrote:

> When did you first hear about the GANG
> RAPE again? Knowing how in-depth those MSM folks
> are, they were all over that story weren't they?
> Especially when it wasn't tied to a political
> issue like Franken's unenforceable amendment (as
> per the Justice Department).


http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1 12/2007

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4829320&page=1 05/2008

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jamie+Leigh+Jones 12/2007
LOL the NY Daily News!

http://www.upi.com/topic/Jamie_Leigh_Jones/

4 stories over the last 2+ years

and even this from FOX (but nothing on the Franken amendment--lol, "fair and balanced all right!):
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=jamie+leigh+jones

They must not have reported it on Fox and Friends, Reg? Damn that Doocy.

Reggie, muh man, does the hole you've dug seem deeper somehow?
I can't even predict the next slimey side-step you'll attempt now.
But keep trying-its high comedy, big fella.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 12:54PM by fairfaxdude.

What hole? You didn't answer the question. Did you know about it til this fake outrage over the Franken Amendment?

At this point it appears the answer is No, since all you have done is toss up some news stories you were able to find on the issue.

The only hole here is the one in your head where a brain is supposed to sit. Your kibitzing me on this issue has nothing to do with whether you actually believe it is right or wrong, all you want to do is somehow get "one up" on me. Have fun tilting at that windmill dumbshit.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Here's some brilliance in your noting the postings also - I don't suppose you read any of them.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1&page=1

Quote

...
Asked what reasons the departments gave for the apparent slowness of the probes, Poe sounded frustrated.

"There are several, I think, their excuses, why the perpetrators haven't been prosecuted," Poe told ABC News. "But I think it is the responsibility of our government, the Justice Department and the State Department, when crimes occur against American citizens overseas in Iraq, contractors that are paid by the American public, that we pursue the criminal cases as best as we possibly can and that people are prosecuted."

Since no criminal charges have been filed, the only other option, according to Hutson, is the civil system, which is the approach that Jones is trying now. But Jones' former employer doesn't want this case to see the inside of a civil courtroom.

KBR has moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it.

In arbitration, there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings, meaning that Jones' claims would not be heard before a judge and jury. Rather, a private arbitrator would decide Jones' case. In recent testimony before Congress, employment lawyer Cathy Ventrell-Monsees said that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of arbitration proceedings brought against it.

In his interview with ABC News, Rep. Poe said he sided with Jones.

"Air things out in a public forum of a courtroom," said Rep. Poe. "That's why we have courts in the United States."

In her lawsuit, Jones' lawyer, Todd Kelly, says KBR and Halliburton created a "boys will be boys" atmosphere at the company barracks which put her and other female employees at great risk.

"I think that men who are there believe that they live without laws," said Kelly. "The last thing she should have expected was for her own people to turn on her."

Halliburton, which has since divested itself of KBR, says it "is improperly named" in the suit.

In a statement, KBR said it was "instructed to cease" its own investigation by U.S. government authorities "because they were assuming sole responsibility for the criminal investigations."
...

2 years later, where is the Federal Government on this issue? Other than Franken attempting to push through an unenforceable amendment.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Mediation and arbitration are in fact widely used/abused by large companies in contracts with people (employees and costumers). The Arbitration and mediation boards are a big scam. They reward mediators for not issuing awards for individuals. In addition they allow Corporations actions to be withheld from public knowledge.

KBR works for the Government - they work for you and me. You dont want to know what they did or didnt do - fine. I think most of us would like a company working for us to be accountable for this sort of thing.

We pay them. Why allow them to write in mandatory mediation for Gang Rape. Come on you have to see the truth in that.

And oh yeah. Oops.

Kathleen Parker: GOP getting beaten up for correct vote
http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/article_c46ca8ca-c042-11de-a595-001cc4c002e0.html

Quote

...
Yet, 30 Republican members of the U.S. Senate have been getting phone calls lately from people asking, "Why do you support rape?"

These callers most likely are familiar with the mock Web site "RepublicansForRape.org," which recounts the recent skirmish over Sen. Al Franken's so-called "anti-rape" amendment to the Senate defense appropriations bill. For something so un-funny, the subject has become an exercise in the absurd.

...

One might assume that there must be some reasonable explanation for 30 Republican senators taking a position that would invite vilification. In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Department of Defense in a letter to senators.

Apparently, the "why-do-you-support-rape" crowd overlooked that detail. It's far more entertaining to insist that Republicans, instead of objecting to a potentially bad law, don't mind if women get gang-raped. Legal wrangling is not for sissies in Twitter World.

The real goal, obviously, should be to ensure that no one is denied access to justice and that arbitration agreements are nonbinding in criminal acts. In fact, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month in Jones' favor, agreeing that the alleged gang rape wasn't related to her employment and that she, therefore, wasn't bound by the company's arbitration agreement.

Wow, seems like justice prevailed there kibbles. She got it past the civil litigation arbiters of her BINDING contract - who would've thought. Stupid ass.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mediation and arbitration are in fact widely
> used/abused by large companies in contracts with
> people (employees and costumers). The Arbitration
> and mediation boards are a big scam. They reward
> mediators for not issuing awards for individuals.
> In addition they allow Corporations actions to be
> withheld from public knowledge.
>
> KBR works for the Government - they work for you
> and me. You dont want to know what they did or
> didnt do - fine. I think most of us would like a
> company working for us to be accountable for this
> sort of thing.
>
> We pay them. Why allow them to write in mandatory
> mediation for Gang Rape. Come on you have to see
> the truth in that.

Thank God for the press huh? Now, if only they would do their jobs and actually dig into why shit like this happens (ie why hasn't the Justice Dept moved forward on this issue) we might actually have a better understanding of who is to blame. The companies, the bureaucrats, or some combination thereof. But hey, instead, let's just write laws because they "feel good" - that is always a good justification for lawyers. Oh right, Franken is a comedian, I forgot.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 01:49PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And oh yeah. Oops.
>
> Kathleen Parker: GOP getting beaten up for correct
> vote
> http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/articl
> e_c46ca8ca-c042-11de-a595-001cc4c002e0.html
>
> ...
> Yet, 30 Republican members of the U.S. Senate have
> been getting phone calls lately from people
> asking, "Why do you support rape?"
>
> These callers most likely are familiar with the
> mock Web site "RepublicansForRape.org," which
> recounts the recent skirmish over Sen. Al
> Franken's so-called "anti-rape" amendment to the
> Senate defense appropriations bill. For something
> so un-funny, the subject has become an exercise in
> the absurd.
>
> ...
>
> One might assume that there must be some
> reasonable explanation for 30 Republican senators
> taking a position that would invite vilification.
> In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is
> that the amendment was overbroad and might not be
> enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by
> the Department of Defense in a letter to
> senators.
>
> Apparently, the "why-do-you-support-rape" crowd
> overlooked that detail. It's far more entertaining
> to insist that Republicans, instead of objecting
> to a potentially bad law, don't mind if women get
> gang-raped. Legal wrangling is not for sissies in
> Twitter World.
>
> The real goal, obviously, should be to ensure that
> no one is denied access to justice and that
> arbitration agreements are nonbinding in criminal
> acts. In fact, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
> Appeals ruled last month in Jones' favor, agreeing
> that the alleged gang rape wasn't related to her
> employment and that she, therefore, wasn't bound
> by the company's arbitration agreement.
>
>
> Wow, seems like justice prevailed there kibbles.
> She got it past the civil litigation arbiters of
> her BINDING contract - who would've thought.
> Stupid ass.


Franken addressed this specifically in introducing his bill - it was an excellent ruling. It took her 5 years of fighting though. Justice delayed is justice denied. Personally I do not think gang rape victims should have to fight 5 years just to get their day in court.

I also think that if KBR was complicit in the crime they should subject to litigation regardless of the mediation clause in her contract. Clearly the intent of the mediation was not to protect KBR from being liable for false imprisonment or rape.

If you cannot run your company well enough to keep employees from raping and imprisoning each other I am afraid I have little sympathy for the sanctity of your employee contracts. That is especially true if a company seeks to use the contracts to protect itself from liability resulting from such acts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 01:58PM by dono.

Well, I guess it takes a Comedian to figure out how to correct the law huh? And again, maybe the press could have made a bigger deal about it if they were SO concerned (in the last 5 years) so that there would have been more pressure to correct the problem.

I don't argue it would have been great to have this resolved sooner than this, but at the same time, the press is great at shoving off the issue as a political one, when in fact they were too busy anal probing themselves to do anything close to what used to be called real news analysis and reporting. The fact that Justice Department failed to investigate this fully should be more troubling in my opinion.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Comedian - why not? I do still half expect him to break into Stewart Smally anytime. In fairness he was a math major at Harvard.

This is an easy issue to side with and I think the Republicans are dumb to oppose it. What they are actually fighting for is ALL the companies that us arbitration to bury cases against them in private by a system that favors corporations.

That said here is a little more Franken for your entertainment:

It's a bad amendment. I expect by the time this gets to reconciliation with the House it will be corrected to what Justice and DOD was asking for, versus the feel good version Franken proposed.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Reggie puked:
"What hole? You didn't answer the question. Did you know about it til this fake outrage over the Franken Amendment?"

Yes, I heard about it quite a while back. And I heard about the "shoddy work" claims about Halliburton, where their own employees were electrocuted in Iraq, and the sub-standard execution of myriad other Iraqi support contracts, from bad water, to bottled water charges, to even mess hall mismanagment. Yeah, Im a HUGE fan of Halliburton, all right. $16B of taxpayer SOLE-SOURCE contracts. Very cozy--very hush hush. You'd think YOU, of ALL people, would be outraged as well. Guess not, huh?

Here's some helpful information, Reggie: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

And, he puked again:
"Wow, seems like justice prevailed there kibbles. She got it past the civil litigation arbiters of her BINDING contract - who would've thought. Stupid ass."

Nice. And it took her almost 5 years to get there, with KBR/Halliburton stonewalling all the way. I think I put blame on DoJ as well- read back. I'm not fond of the cozy DoJ/Halliburton sole source contracting (leaving out the Cheney connection in all of this).

And just so you know, I'll be EXTREMELY disappointed if Holder doesn't go after this bullshit. He has a huge mess of past crimes and mishaps on his plate to sift through, but I hope he gets to it. Pronto. It's probably a lot easier to withdraw all troops, though, than unwind the byzantine Halliburton tentancles in the DoD. But I'd short Halliburton stock if I were you--just a tip, Reggie.

And if you could short Cheney stock, I'd do that too. That fuck-nozzle's time is up.

Prediction: Reggie side-step/change of subject. Complete with new insults, and his own brand of superiority.

EDIT: I forgot to compliment you on using a KATHLEEN PARKER editorial as your "retort". LOL. You dolt.

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 04:23PM by fairfaxdude.

Kibbles, maybe you should start a thread on Halliburton/KBR sole source contracts, it seems like you have an interest. Granted, the original thought didn't occur to you until after I questioned the MSM ability to show an issue as partisan (only the Republicans would vote against that kind of amendment) on a bad idea. Far be it from me to defend the Dems from passing bad laws.

Your fake outrage is commendable, but you are still seem to be coming at this from the "defense of Halliburton/KBR" issue. I am not defending them, anything but. I was commenting on media bias, and you and your troll buddies went off on anything but the point I made. So now that I have proven you wrong again, you still want to come in and make it about Halliburton/KBR and Cheney. Good for you - now you can go talk about that, it had nothing to do with my point did it? Nope. Sole source contracts come from all sides of the government, nothing new there either. Maybe you can get them to stop awarding juicy sole source contracts to any contractor - that is an entirely different issue. Cheney is not in office anymore, let's hope the next time contracts come up for renewal they exclude Halliburton/KBR totally.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
> Normally she could file for negligence against
> them in civil court - unfortunately her contract
> would normally preclude that. I believe though
> that if she went to mediation, and was not
> satisfied with the outcome, and could then prove
> it was unreasonable considering the circumstances,
> she could take them to civil court in any case.
> Not a happy process, but she could do it.
>
> EDIT: Binding arbitration is fine, right up to the
> point where the conduct borders on the criminal
> side of an issue. They could always make a
> criminal complaint to the Justice Dept for
> something that went beyond standard civil
> arbitration.

Isn't that amazing...

> Kathleen Parker: GOP getting beaten up for correct
> vote
> http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/articl
> e_c46ca8ca-c042-11de-a595-001cc4c002e0.html
>
> ...
> The real goal, obviously, should be to ensure that
> no one is denied access to justice and that
> arbitration agreements are nonbinding in criminal
> acts. In fact, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
> Appeals ruled last month in Jones' favor, agreeing
> that the alleged gang rape wasn't related to her
> employment and that she, therefore, wasn't bound
> by the company's arbitration agreement.

Who is to blame Kibbles? Who is to blame? tsk tsk... perhaps they could expand that to include all criminal acts... hmm?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2009 05:35PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Who is to blame Kibbles? Who is to blame? tsk
> tsk... perhaps they could expand that to include
> all criminal acts... hmm?

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a bad amendment. I expect by the time this
> gets to reconciliation with the House it will be
> corrected to what Justice and DOD was asking for,
> versus the feel good version Franken proposed.

'Feel good'

I believe that applies to everything the Republicans represent in this instance rather than the bill they oppose.

rape, profit and Corporate control over people and government.

Ok Vince... er dono. Great point. Keep up the failed argument.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok Vince... er dono. Great point. Keep up the
> failed argument.


Ok Gravis....keep up the failed arguments...oh yeah..and lies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ok Vince... er dono. Great point. Keep up the
> > failed argument.
>
>
> Ok Gravis....keep up the failed arguments...oh
> yeah..and lies.

Hey Vince, you seem to have marginalized yourself. What gives? New medications? Or just new paranoia?

LOL

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments: