yep yep - Republicans are the rational ones...

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3160375
Conservative ideology is the way to go. We liberals are obviously lunatics. (Oh - and, of course - wrong.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_312976.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_321985.html
I apologize for previous liberal rants. I've had an epiphany.
And like a typical liberal you never let the truth get in the way of a good story

"if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment"
Seems reasonable to me
But now for the rest of the story
"or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

Another payback to the trial lawyers for all those bribes they give the democraps. If this only included cases of assault, sxual harassment etc. as the Huffpo fraudulently implied I think it would have passed unanimously. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
This is messed up! I saw it on the Daily Show the other night, but wanted more info before bringing it up. But, I guess the reps think it is ok to lock women up like animals....
 
tang master

tang master

Member
oh wow. i forgot; anything against the liberal agenda is punishable by death, right? come on, women survived before they had rights to. plus, they are only out for your money anyways.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
The problem is, siding with this bill, does not mean you are defending employees that are gang raped.
You are siding with lawyers and opening up the door for companies to be sued for actions done by individuals that may be unknown to the company.
Haliburton was stupid however. But my question is, did the order to lock her up in the shipping container come from the upper echelons of the company, or did it come from the immediate supervisor of those that raped her whom may have been involved in it? If it cam from the supervisor, is the the companies responsibility? If so, then any company that employees someone that purchases a gun and then kills people is equally at fault for the murders and should be sued as well.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3160592
The problem is, siding with this bill, does not mean you are defending employees that are gang raped.
You are siding with lawyers and opening up the door for companies to be sued for actions done by individuals that may be unknown to the company.
Haliburton was stupid however. But my question is, did the order to lock her up in the shipping container come from the upper echelons of the company, or did it come from the immediate supervisor of those that raped her whom may have been involved in it? If it cam from the supervisor, is the the companies responsibility? If so, then any company that employees someone that purchases a gun and then kills people is equally at fault for the murders and should be sued as well.
The second you see Halibutron used as the example you know the bill probably has dubious motives. You wouldn't have to have the liberals break out their favorite voodoo doll to promote the bill if their was a legitimate need for it.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3160430
And like a typical liberal you never let the truth get in the way of a good story

"if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment"
Seems reasonable to me
But now for the rest of the story
"or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

Another payback to the trial lawyers for all those bribes they give the democraps. If this only included cases of assault, sxual harassment etc. as the Huffpo fraudulently implied I think it would have passed unanimously. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
dang facts.
Seriously, "forced arbitration" or not, they really can't keep you from suing.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3161600
dang facts.
Seriously, "forced arbitration" or not, they really can't keep you from suing.
I talked to my wife about it who isn't a lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn last night but she has been employed by lawyers as a Paralegal for the last couple decades. She said in cases where the employer has broken the law it is pretty hard to prevent the employee from suing if they don't like the outcome of the arbitration.
I know as a covered insured under workers comp if I have an issue I have to go through "binding arbitration" before I can sue them if they pzzz me off. Point is I can still sue if I really want to.
This bill was nothing but yet another bone to the trial lawyers.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3160430
And like a typical liberal you never let the truth get in the way of a good story


"if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment"
Seems reasonable to me
But now for the rest of the story
"or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

Another payback to the trial lawyers for all those bribes they give the democraps. If this only included cases of assault, sxual harassment etc. as the Huffpo fraudulently implied I think it would have passed unanimously. Unfortunately that wasn't the case.
Ok, so you're saying the Republocrats don't take bribes? Really? Perhaps that's why they've lost control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the White House???
You heard it here first, Ladies and Gentlemen: Republocrats are HONEST. They don't cheat. That's why they and their policies have failed.
Alrighty then. So what do we do in cases of determining whether or not a particular r*pe was commited fraudulently? She might have deserved it, after all <s>.
What - a 19 year old looking for a job, as a condition of employment, can sign away her right not to be raped and has to go through Corporate Arbitration before she has a right to file criminal charges??? Non-disclosure clauses exist to protect proprietary information, not to protect the corporation's employees from criminal acts.
Brilliant. Capitalism at its absolute FINEST. Deutschland &#252;ber alles. Not that I seriously believe you're defending the policy, but if it is so reasonable, would you be OK with your daughter working for Haliburton?
Not only that, but as a taxpayer, I'm the employer of that corporation. I'm s'posed to agree to their policy?
I don't think so.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3162040

Ok, so you're saying the Republocrats don't take bribes? Really? Perhaps that's why they've lost control of the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the White House???
You heard it here first, Ladies and Gentlemen: Republocrats are HONEST. They don't cheat. That's why they and their policies have failed.
Alrighty then. So what do we do in cases of determining whether or not a particular r*pe was commited fraudulently? She might have deserved it, after all <s>.
What - a 19 year old looking for a job, as a condition of employment, can sign away her right not to be raped and has to go through Corporate Arbitration before she has a right to file criminal charges??? Non-disclosure clauses exist to protect proprietary information, not to protect the corporation's employees from criminal acts.
Brilliant. Capitalism at its absolute FINEST. Deutschland &#252;ber alles. Not that I seriously believe you're defending the policy, but if it is so reasonable, would you be OK with your daughter working for Haliburton?
Not only that, but as a taxpayer, I'm the employer of that corporation. I'm s'posed to agree to their policy?
I don't think so.
You can't be naive enough to believe the line of crap you are spreading.

Arbitration has N O T H I N G to do with filing criminal charges, period.
And yes, I would be fine with my wife or daughter working for any company that uses arbitration because the smart business policies would probably lead to better pay and benefits.
Yes, Bublicans take bribes but they are not in the pockets of groups to the extent the Democrats are. Unions and the plaintiffs bar give nearly all of their money to the Dems. The only thing that comes close for the Republicans is evangelical Christians. Ooooo, Scary
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3162036
There is no source of unbiased information.
There would be if Obama followed through on his pledge to post the text of bills on line for 72 hours or whatever before he signed them. I thought that was a great idea. Of course no politician will ever follow through on it. If the public had a chance to read this crap before it was signed into law the politicians would take so much heat they might actually have to conceed to the will of the people. Can't have that.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162103
You can't be naive enough to believe the line of crap you are spreading.

Arbitration has N O T H I N G to do with filing criminal charges, period.
I'm not so sure these days. My current employer is perfectly happy, and also encourages me, to break the law, because it's in their best interests to do so. I don't particularly care, because I can fend for myself, but there are curumstances under which that's not possible. I.e. one is too young to have knowledge of the law, etc.
And yes, I would be fine with my wife or daughter working for any company that uses arbitration because the smart business policies would probably lead to better pay and benefits.
OK, lemme know how that works out for you.
Yes, Bublicans take bribes but they are not in the pockets of groups to the extent the Democrats are.
Oh, you're absolutely right there. The Republocrats are all about playing withing the law. That's why they're losing.
Unions and the plaintiffs bar give nearly all of their money to the Dems. The only thing that comes close for the Republicans is evangelical Christians. Ooooo, Scary

Yah. Corporations and their lawyers don't play that game. They're all about fairness to the employee. That's why we don't need laws limiting what employers are allowed to do. They will naturally pick the best situation for their workers. Yup, yup. Capitalism dictates that no-one get taken advantage of...
We should return to the unregulated days of 19th Century England. That's when Capitalism was at it's best.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3162130
I'm not so sure these days. My current employer is perfectly happy, and also encourages me, to break the law, because it's in their best interests to do so. I don't particularly care, because I can fend for myself, but there are curumstances under which that's not possible. I.e. one is too young to have knowledge of the law, etc.
OK, lemme know how that works out for you.
Oh, you're absolutely right there. The Republocrats are all about playing withing the law. That's why they're losing.
Yah. Corporations and their lawyers don't play that game. They're all about fairness to the employee. That's why we don't need laws limiting what employers are allowed to do. They will naturally pick the best situation for their workers. Yup, yup. Capitalism dictates that no-one get taken advantage of...
We should return to the unregulated days of 19th Century England. That's when Capitalism was at it's best.
I wouldn't work for anyone that broke the law or asked me too. I left a couple pretty good paying jobs in my life because of that.
19th century England couldn't touch the good ol, REGULATED USA for capitalism until the Unions and Envirowakos went off the deep end in the 70's.
As far as parties go the Democrats play to identity politics well, you are a minority, woman, gay, disabled, etc We will save you.
The thing I find less detestable about the Republicans, at least the ideals the Republican party is supposed to be about is the platform was based on individual rights.
The best example of what the Republican party is supposed to be about is contained in an episode of the West Wing TV show of all places, I used to refer to it as the left wing to PO the wife. Anyway there was a character that was supposed to be a gay Republican Congressman. When one of the liberal characters asked how he could be a gay republican the guy summed up perfectly what it is SUPPOSED to be all about. "I don't deserve any rights because I am a member of a group. I deserve the right to be a member of a group because I am an individual" or something loosely to that extent.
I don't care for the pandering to all these groups. Watch what happens with health care. The idea of taxing the high dollar insurance policies will get buried because the unions oppose it. Tort reform wont happen because the trial lawyers don't like it. Then follow the money.
Of course the other side will claim the republicans are in the insurance companies pockets but OOPS! INSURANCE COMPANIES GIVE 58% TO THE DEMOCRATS!!!
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162166
Of course the other side will claim the republicans are in the insurance companies pockets but OOPS! INSURANCE COMPANIES GIVE 58% TO THE DEMOCRATS!!!

And of course the avergae american and all liberals will eat it up as well. Never realizing the "evil" insurance companies currently only experience a 2.2% profit margin. They are really raping us with their rates. Jack in the box experiences a higher profit margin at 4.4% than most health insurance companies.But it is the health insurance companies that need to reduce THEIR rates....
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3162263
And of course the avergae american and all liberals will eat it up as well. Never realizing the "evil" insurance companies currently only experience a 2.2% profit margin. They are really raping us with their rates. Jack in the box experiences a higher profit margin at 4.4% than most health insurance companies.But it is the health insurance companies that need to reduce THEIR rates....
And many would argue that is a horrible example, saying that eating Jackin the Box is a privilege, health care is a right.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3162299
And many would argue that is a horrible example, saying that eating Jackin the Box is a privilege, health care is a right.
so would food also be a right...you need it more so than heath insurance.
30 days no health insurance...odds are you are still alive.
30 days no food...you are dead. Yet the food industry on an average makes a 5-7% profit.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
I'm not saying that, I was just pointing out where people would argue Jack in the Box and Health Insurance companies are completely different. The difference with food though, is that you can go out and grow/kill your own. Not likely to happen in this urbanized society, but possible.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3162347
I'm not saying that, I was just pointing out where people would argue Jack in the Box and Health Insurance companies are completely different. The difference with food though, is that you can go out and grow/kill your own. Not likely to happen in this urbanized society, but possible.
Need land to grow and a license to hunt...lol...but I see the angle you are saying others will use...I am just pointing out the health insurance companies are not making the huge profits and raking us over the coals as people claim they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top