Nice pointless rant. Nothing is wrong with libertarians when you compare them to Nazis either. You obviously have not learned to not take everything you see written in a forum as true or a true point of view, my librarian friend. You are close to being considered a moron. So.......... fuck you you fucking fucker. :biggrin:
Holy shit what did you just say? Anywho I'm gathering that you agree with me then. Or is this some sort of straw-man distraction? Honestly I'm not sure what you just said a few here interpret it that you disagree with me but I'm not sure. Any specifics you can point out for me? The "alleged" rape incident BTW happened outside of America. Is rape legal or something? Did someone make rape legal and has Al Franken come sweeping in like the hero of this story to save the lady in distress and re-illegalize rape?
That was my question too, Joe. Why aren't the rapists being charged and tried with Rape? I've never heard of a rape civil suit without a criminal case as well. And instead of suing the corporation... why not sue the people who committed the crime? Unless of course the company knowing hired rapists. And then placed a female with them all alone late at night with pornography playing on every TV set in the place. Then I might see them as being somewhat responsible.
I agree with you, I read most of the posts and the majority of them are just slanderous accusations rather than an intelligently debated topic. I think it a violation of human rights when companies prevent you from suing them or their employees, especially when it's done through deception. They [the companies] count on the average american not being able to understand legal terms and the peculiar structure of some contracts.
Nah, rape has always been illegal. That's the whole point. KBR made it impossible for the woman to seek a legal recourse by putting that clause in the contract. So in a sense KBR made rape legal on their construction sites.
Don't quote me on this but I think that the only recourse was a civil suit. Because the alleged incident happened in Iraq, on an american construction site, it scrambled the actual court system as far a prosecution goes. Does it go through the Iraqi system or our own? I think we have to find that out first. What are the actual provisions for oversea crimes? It's a complicated issue to say the least. I tend to lean in favor of that woman, the reason why the company is being sued is because they didn't assist her after the incident; they put her back to work with the same people. Anyway, let's try and find out what should actually happen from a legal point of view. Wikipedia, here I come!
The company raped her? A co-worker raped her? Is there a disclaimer or provision preventing her from suing said co-worker? Did she have an orgasm? If so did she pay for services rendered?
Yes there is a disclaimer, that's the whole point. I don't know about an orgasm but you're starting to sound stupid so I'm choosing to end my contribution to this thread right now. I guess that expecting a good intelligent debate was too much to ask for, so you can go on and live your life thinking that a woman who got raped had an orgasm.
LOL you go to a site called "FuglyForums" with what sort of expectation? The point is you and I do not know if she was raped or not. The anti-corporate, anti-establishment, anti-America bunch have a long history of crying wolf. They would absolutely love to be able to shake down corporations for something they can stage in the first place. The french fry guy at McDonalds does not have very deep pockets but McDonalds does so why not put a guy in there and have him dump a bunch of night crawlers in the grease then send in a patron to wink at the fry clerk to give the signal and order a special order of frys? Could be very lucrative for all involved. Huh? What's that? You think trial lawyers are honest and corporations intent on running an efficient business on the other hand just spend their time looking for the next female employee to rape? Good riddens there lawman.
Nah, I know all about mass tort lawyers and their kind. It actually reminded of a story that came out a few years back; this woman goes to Wendy's and orders a bowl of chili, minutes later, she screams in disgust and demands to see the manager. She says that she just found a severed finger in her chili and she's going to sue everybody. Wendy's decides to investigate; no one at their "chili plant" has a missing finger, no one at the restaurant has a missing finger either, so who does? Well as it turns out, her husband had just coincidently lost one of his in a farming accident days earlier. The woman was jailed for trying to defraud a corporation. I think that we are losing sight of the purpose of the bill. It's about helping people when they really need it, to give them the tools to fight off scrupulous corporations; and trust me there are some. I know just as well as you do that frivolous lawsuits are being filed in the thousands every year, and it veils the ones that are legitimate. The McDonald's guy can very well put bugs in the fries if he wants to, but if he gets caught (and they usually are), he'll pay the price for abusing the system. I would rather live in a place where the system is abused rather than no system at all. I can't say that I'm a libertarian, people are too dumb to know what's good for them; I would say that I'm a totalitarian. I believe that "big brother" works, I believe that without a strict, brutal, and merciless court system; the world is a chaotic shithole. Just look at L.A, gangs are running wild and innocent people get killed everyday, while the soft judges and spineless cops sit back and do nothing. I'm all about regulating everything, because as we just saw with that case; people can't do shit on their own. So bring forth the bills, the amendments, and the laws. If you break 'em your ass gets towed to jail, far from the decent people. It's not communism, it's totalism.
Did you mean this? to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism Pronunciation: \(ËŒ)tÅ-ËŒta-lÉ™-ˈter-Ä“-É™-ËŒni-zÉ™m\ Function: noun Date: 1926 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority sounds like a different name for communism Mr Marx. You're the kind of person the founding fathers warned us about.
Grandshot I think your avatar is a little out of synch with your ideals. Captain Spaulding would have been completely down with gangbanging a chick then sticking her in a jack in the box.
Nah, communism is different from the economic point of view. In a totalitarian regime you are allowed to make profit and to do business as you please; but if you fall out of order, the state will punish you. People are just sheeps nowadays anyway, always bumping into each other's ass, always complaining about the governement and how unfair it is. Bunch of sissies.
The point of the definition was you called it totalism, not totalitarianism. It appears you don't know what you're talking about The definition is from Websters and says under total control by the state, it says nothing about capitalism which is a different sort of society. I detect the distinct odor of male bovine feces. :frown:
Ok fair enough and I commend you on your honesty. That being said I feel compelled to point out that there is a fatal flaw beyond the philosophical one I have tried to point out and that is that the integrity of the court system must be flawless. People must trust the system and the system would need to be firmly planted in the constitution. This is not the case unfortunately as you can see with the latest Supreme court appointment. To many of our judges despise the constitution and choose instead to legislate from the bench imposing their failed socialist beliefs on us. They have lost the confidence of the people for both real reasons by the right as I mentioned. And for trumpted up reasons by the left who by into the media's anto-American propaganda.
So how do we stop them? The court system must be flawless, but the judges ARE the system. So when spineless ones are appointed, the system fails. It goes further than right or left, for years now politicians have appointed attorney generals or secretary of justice based on partisanship rather than integrity. So we have slimy boot-lickers rather than stongheaded keeper of justice. I don't know, maybe I'm too ideological and can't see past the tip of my fucking nose but I feel like everything is slipping. At this point in my life I can't even say I'm democrat anymore and the right seems just as bad, I crave for a true leader; not the kind that bows to arabs so fucking low he might as well be sucking the guy's cock, but not so out of touch as Bush was. It's like there is no balance, either you have a spineless moron, or a bloodthirsty bumbling fool. Clinton had some good in him but turned out he liked to have his cock sucked by a jew on Easter. Reagan had some good in him too but sparked the economical crisis of the mid-eighties. What do you think? Should I fence up my yard and proclaim I'm the United-Nation of IamTheLaw? Anyway, how was the weekend? hahaha
