Senator Thad Cochran on his vote against the Franken anti-rape amendment

[Joanne98]

Run time: 04:38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc   Posted on YouTube: October 19, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: October 20, 2009 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 1576

 

[EnviroBat]

1. I'm so glad the Junior Senator from Minnesota.

Is exposing these assholes for the lying, corporate protectionists they truly are. Finally, a common sense bill to flush out the roaches, and the exposure is priceless. Just look at the material we are gathering to use against these pricks in 2010.

Way to go Al Franken!!!

:woohoo:

[peacetalksforall]

2. Mr Macho man - meet Mr Corporate man. Rational deductive fairness - dismissed in favor of the

entity that benefits. THE CORPORATIONS. Milimeters inches - we are a Corpocracy because of hard working legislators like him.

[damntexdem]

3. "You've been fantastic" - fantastically callous.

I would not at all assume that he would oppose contracting oneself into slavery.

[AlexDeLarge]

4. "If the employee had agreed to those curcumstances ..."

Of course, why wouldn't any woman, or any man for that matter, agree to being a rape victim? We can't let the government get involved in what is clearly an employee-employer dispute. Just because rape may be considered a felony, that doesn't mean that employees of a company can't engage in such behaviour. What was Franken thinking?

<sarcasm>

THANK YOU, AL FRANKEN for bringing common sense back to the House of Lords.

[usregimechange]

5. Did I just watch that?

[winyanstaz]

6. That man might be a senator but he is also a jerk of the highest order...

He knows damned well what he signed.
Thank you Senator Franken! We appreciate your hard work and thanks for flushing these bastards out into the open.

[ellenfl]

7. the one question he did not ask was should women

expect that the arbitration would cover gang rape. the standard arbitration clause does not foresee rape as the issue, imo.

ellen fl

[rhett o rick]

8. Apparently they think that a corporation written contract over rules laws and the Constitution. nt

[JDPriestly]

9. If there was a history of rapes of employees of this employer

it seems to me that there might be various ways to challenge the validity of the contract not just the arbitration clause, but of the whole contract. Could it be argued that the employer was in some sense complicit in the rapes? Was the basic employment contract in part unlawful in that it was implicitly an employment for unlawful purposes -- i.e., rape? Just brainstorming on this. I have no idea how these theories would wash out in a court.