This is why I don't bother with politics. It's like watching a sandbox-playground scene;

The two kids argues about who has built the best sandcastle, as well as fight over who gets to play with the toy truck.
Of course at the side of the playground sits their mothers, both involved in a heated argument about who's kid is the smartest based on how they play at home and in the sandbox.

Indeed. But I felt that, heck, if liberals are considered idiots, what does than make the cons? And this is only because CS pisses me off something fierce. And amuses me.

...Yes I realize it's oxymoronic, shut up XD

I imagine they'd be against it because they benefit from keeping things hidden from the public eye, because money and image is far more important than the abuse of someone by being harassed at work and wanting to be able to sweep it under the rug. Plus if it manages to get public there are criminal sanctions to worry about. So just about the only reason I can see to fight the amendment other than to make covering up criminal behavior better is if there's hidden legislation tacked on to get something unpopular or immoral through by having it ride through on a bill that's of the 'no one would ever vote against this bill so we can get this bill we know no one would vote for through on the sly'.

They may not have actually been voting against the 'rape clause'. Bills are laden with all sorts of rubbish and they may simply have wanted another aspect of it changed before voting again. This happens all time.

It's what allowed the GOP to claim Kerry was a flip-flopper and that he voted against providing gear to troops in the field. That was the part of the bill they singled out, but not necessarily the part he was 'for then against'.

So until these senators say why voted against it, we can't accuse them of being insensitive to women's issues. It may have been because of a completely unrelated section.

None the less, this amendment already passed the Senate, with Republican support. Those who opposed the amendment did so because;
1. they opposed the broad language of the bill
2. they did not believe Congress should be re-writing existing employee agreements with contractors
3. courts already ruled that rape falls outside the scope of existing contracts and can be heard in court (vs via arbitration as the contracts say)

and everyones preferred demonization.
4. they just flat out love rape.
5. Republicans want to starve children, want you to die, and support rape. Hope and change, it's a new day in Washington.

I don't waste time on the demonizing, when they hype things like flip-flopping views or how they voted against an obvious 'no brainer' bill that everyone should have been for I tend to get skeptical because of the common practice of slapping stuff onto popular bills to get bad stuff in under the radar (like funding for a politician's supporter who also happens to be employing his daughter). I tend to look at how they vote on things that aren't so obvious, the bills that aren't so popular where their true interests are more likely to be determined.

Its not a bill about rape. its an amendment added to an unrelated bill. Read below.

I know, I don't like calling Republicans pro-rapist too, but then, many Reps do the same with calling Dems pro-terrorism because they are against things like Guantánamo bay and try to enforce human rights in general, even if it turns surreal and stupid at times.

In the end, the whole political system is fucked up.

right now its the other way around. The dems are calling reoubliucans and conservatives terrorists

Its not about the term terrorist, its about that both parties just act stupid, rude and in my way of thinking senseless.

Ad hominem attacks, generalizations, fallacies...you name it. Both parties use it, and its not like that is only an american thing. Every fucking political system on this planet is filled with that right now, no matter which country or political side.

I mean, politics were always a dick-comparing fest, people whipping out their opinions and reasoning and making clear points what they think is wrong and right. But it was never as uncivil as these days, were everyone just see's an evil enemy in the other side, alluring terms and insults with them and seeing only a conform mass of people who all act the same and all intended to do evil.

Thats what bugs me, and you can turn it as you want, but CS pretty much personalizes this trend, though I see more and more poeple like him pop up here, on every side of the conflict.

Given enough time can we call you the anti-cigar? :P

Possibly ;P

know what? im tired of seeing 20 fucking journals about Cigar skunk. can we stop bitching about him? jesus fucking christ. just unsubscribe to him.

Well...

If he would stop bitching in such an insulting and often downright rude way about politics, then I would be fine with him.

Its not like CS is the onyl person who uses fallacies and insulting generalization on this site, but he is the one who does it very often and still calls himself open-minded.

But yeah, I'm kinda filled up about journals with or based off him.

So I'm neutral on this matter.

Then fuckign unsubscribe to him. its like an abused wife stayign with her abusive husband.

and you all listen to this idiot and BITCH about his bitching!. dont you see how fuckin retarted that is?

I don't unsubscribe CS because he still posts some nice art, and rarely posts journals that about something else then politics, like games or other stuff.

And your second paragraph confuses me a bit, who do you adresse with Idiot?

Then just stop reading the journals dumbass.

Do I speak Moonspeak or are you just too dumb to read my answer to Maverick? If I stop reading your journals (or at least stop looking at the journal titles) to see if it could have to do with something not political, I wouldn't be able to read the rare stuff we both can agree on, games for example, since not all of your political rants are as "cleverly" titled as "Obama declares war on moon" or "Obama denies seniors social security increase" so I can expect "what it says on the can".

Also, I could call you far worse names then "dumbass" but I'm in a way to good mood for that right now.

How comes you even "lower yourself" to respond to my comment, I though I'm so "unworthy and -YAWN- inducing" to you.

I have to wonder if I'm speaking Moonspeak as well seeing as how you're responding to my response to Mel?

My inbox wouldn't display your comment:

Then just stop reading the journals dumbass.

...as an reply to my comment if it wasn't intended as one, at least not if you "accidently" slipped and choosed my comment to Maverick to comment and on and then "accidently" slipped again to click that post button.

My bad if I hit you instead of him - don't really pay attention to the user name after hitting reply as I work off of the theory that its stayed the same between hitting reply and hitting post.

But if you want to call me a liar feel free to do so - whether or not you believe me means two things to me - jack and shit (and Jack left town years ago).

I don't call you a liar for this now, but on the same token I'm not very happy, so eh, who cares..

ALSO.
They may not have actually been voting against the 'rape clause'. Bills are laden with all sorts of rubbish and they may simply have wanted another aspect of it changed before voting again. This happens all time.

It's what allowed the GOP to claim Kerry was a flip-flopper and that he voted against providing gear to troops in the field. That was the part of the bill they singled out, but not necessarily the part he was 'for then against'.

So until these senators say why voted against it, we can't accuse them of being insensitive to women's issues. It may have been because of a completely unrelated section.

None the less, this amendment already passed the Senate, with Republican support. Those who opposed the amendment did so because;
1. they opposed the broad language of the bill
2. they did not believe Congress should be re-writing existing employee agreements with contractors
3. courts already ruled that rape falls outside the scope of existing contracts and can be heard in court (vs via arbitration as the contracts say)

and everyones preferred demonization.
4. they just flat out love rape.
5. Republicans want to starve children, want you to die, and support rape. Hope and change, it's a new day in Washington.

alnd about the bill .This does not make me feel ill, nor is my moral compassed fucked. The only thing fucked here is the one-way regurgitation of HuffPo and lack of understanding of how charged amendments like this are added to a bill that stands for something altogether unrelated, so that when the entire bill is voted down, the party can count on the ignorant to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions like everyone did above.

Even if you don't understand how the process works, it is still pathetic that you actually believe that these 30 Republicans are pro-rape. But I know a certain Mr. Soros that would float you 100 large to spam your post around the country....

the law about civilian contractors being posecuted under the UCMJ wasnt on the books until after 2005, so the contractors who comitted the crime couldnt be charged under it. also, since her contract stipulates that she cant file sexual assault charges against haliburton, even though there is now a law in effect banning contracts that prevent sexual assault charges, her contract was probably grandfathered in and thus doesnt count. I am no lawyer, but as near as I can figure, this is why.


also

Some UCMJ rules now cover U.S. contractors



During an argument, a U.S. civilian contractor utters a few unprintable words to a U.S. military officer. Under newly revised U.S. law, the contractor may be court-martialed.


The same new rules may apply to contractors who drink alcohol or possess pornography in countries where it is forbidden, commit adultery or fraternize — the military’s term for having improper relationships.
A five-word revision of the U.S. legal code, passed virtually unnoticed by Congress last fall, would make U.S. civilians working for the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan or other “contingency operations” subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


Before the revision, contractors were governed by the UCMJ only in times of declared wars.
The change was intended to close a legal loophole that has enabled contract personnel to escape punishment for violating the law, said Peter Singer, a military scholar at the Brookings Institution.
But a result may be that contractors now can be punished for actions not ordinarily prosecutable under U.S. law, said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, an organization that represents government contractors.

The legal change is the work of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said it would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield” by placing “civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.”


The new law appears to impose the UCMJ — the military’s “code of behavior” — on contractors working for the U.S. military in contingency operations, Soloway said.
The UCMJ’s “behavioral requirements are very different and potentially in conflict with contract law and criminal law,” Soloway said.
New Reasons To Prosecute Civilian contractors now might be punished for disrespecting an officer, disregarding an order or committing adultery — actions that are not prosecutable under U.S. law, Soloway said.


“If a general or colonel directs a contractor or government civilian to do something that is outside terms of contract, under U.S. procurement law, the contractor does not do it without authority from the contracting officer,” Soloway said. But under the UCMJ, “that might be failure to follow an order.”
Singer, who has studied the use of civilian contractors in contemporary wars, called Graham’s amendment “long overdue.”


Without the new law, “whenever our military officers came across episodes of suspected contractor crimes in missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan, they had no tools to resolve them,” he said. Alleged contractor misdeeds range from theft and fraud to mistreatment of prisoners, operating sex rings, rape and murder. But according to Singer, contractors are almost never prosecuted.


Contractors have escaped through a legal gap, he said. They were not covered by the UCMJ, and while they are subject to local laws, often, as in Iraq, there is no functioning legal system to prosecute criminal activity.


Soloway said U.S. contractors are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
“If you are working under a DoD contract at a U.S. military facility and you commit a crime, that is considered a crime in the United States and you can be prosecuted under U.S. law,” he said.
But Singer said, “the reality of MEJA is it has not been activated for Iraq.” Despite atrocities by contract interrogators and killings by contract security guards, no contractors have been prosecuted under MEJA, he said.


“We have had contractors involved in all sorts of stuff, but the military has said there’s nothing we can do,” Singer said. “Many JAG [judge advocate general] officers and contracting officers have wanted this.”
“For the longest time, there has been a legal vacuum and a lack of political will on part of the Bush administration and Congress to do anything about it,” he said.


Concern that contract personnel will be prosecuted for disrespecting an officer, fraternization or other actions that are not violations of civilian law are probably exaggerated, Singer said.
Although it has not been determined yet, it would be reasonable to prosecute civilians under the UCMJ for felony violations, but not for lesser offenses, he said. That is the level at which prosecution occurs under MEJA.


Soloway agreed that “there needs to be a way that contractor and government employees can be prosecuted for criminal acts.” But the Professional Services Council would prefer to have MEJA expanded rather than have contractors subjected to the UCMJ.


“We’re deeply concerned that the broad and arbitrary application of the UCMJ imposes a whole range of behavioral requirements” on contract employees, Soloway said.
But Singer said for too long, contractors have taken advantage of “the unregulated marketplace.”
If private individuals want to do military jobs for profit in war zones on behalf of the U.S. government, then they should agree to fall under the same laws as U.S. soldiers, he said.
















Also

Interestingly,the Obama Administration opposed this as well.

The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract. It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/....._n_326569.html

Same intellectual dishonesty here as you show in my journals (and for someone who avoids politics you certainly post regularly at my journals - guess that makes an even four lies now between two posts and one journal).

You know full well that the rape aspect wasn't why Republicans voted against the bill just as you know that Franken's bill wasn't aimed at protecting women, but simply attacking certain contractors. The fact that no real media outlet even bothered with it was a clue in to all but the dumbest, most half witted and partisan of idiots out there.

The funniest part about this bit of stupidity is that it only serves to highlight just how two-faced idiots like Mel here are when it comes to stuff like this.

How are we supposed to take Dems seriously when they talk about the rights of rape victims after they put Bill Clinton into office twice?

How can we even pretend that they are sincere about victim's rights after they re-elected Gerry Studds multiple times?

And never mind all of the Democrat appointed/elected judges that constantly are soft on sexual predators or the Dems working hand in hand with NAMBLA?

Sorry friend, but your journal lacks as much accuracy as your side lacks moral authority on this topic - I've already suggested that you quit while you're behind, now I'll keep it simple - just plain quit.

Of course it wasn't about the rape, notice that I state that the website was 'satirical', I mean really, do you know what satire is?

Oh really, an attack against certain contractors? I mean, you do know about the KBR case, right? KBR knew that their employees were bad people, and yet misplaced evidence, and Jones is only now getting her day in court. Is there any reason that something like this should be allowed to happen in the first place? Of course not! Arbitration is a bad thing, usually always in favor of the company.

Also, the DoD agrees with what the legislation is trying to do, even if they initially didn't like it.

I'm not arguing moral authority. I'm aruging that you can't claim your party is completely without it's share of idiots either. Also, I don't affiliate myself with either Dems or Repubs. I voted for Bush Jr. last election, and Obama this one. I vote almost entirely on the issues. Nice try, Skunk ;)

Your claim against KBR is unfounded. as a ex-contractor im tired of being branded evil or death squad or rapist.

Of course it wasn't about the rape, notice that I state that the website was 'satirical', I mean really, do you know what satire is?

And once again you flat out lie about what I said - when did I mention the satire site in my response - do you know what intellectual honesty is? If so, then what's your reading comprehension level - about 2nd grade level? Because you're either a congenital liar or dumber then a retarded sea slug - so which is it?

Oh really, an attack against certain contractors?

Yes - Frankin specifically attacked Halliburton repeatedly throughout the debates - again, either intellectual dishonesty or gross, uninformed stupidity on your part - which one?

I mean, you do know about the KBR case, right?

Yes, which calls into question why he'd repeatedly attack HB during the discussion of the bill - you really should try to be a bit better informed, that, or stop lying - so which is it here?

Also, the DoD agrees with what the legislation is trying to do, even if they initially didn't like it.

So the Obama appointees at the DoD support it - what are the odds?

I'm not arguing moral authority.

Sure you are - you have to have moral authority in order to morally condemn someone, otherwise, you're just a f-n hypocrite - you'd understand that if you weren't a leftwing radical who "doesn't need to use facts."

Also, I don't affiliate myself with either Dems or Repubs. I voted for Bush Jr. last election,

You hide it well.

I vote almost entirely on the issues. Nice try, Skunk ;)

Yes, problem is that you vote to the left of the issue - terrible try Mel- yet another in a long line of failures.

Haha! So the fact that the issues I agree with, like gay marriage and pro-choice are on the left, makes me a failure. Well, then I guess we just have a difference of opinion then. I mean, I agree with some of your points sometimes. I just don't like how fallacious your arguments are. That's all.

But I suppose if you can call me a 'failure' and an 'idiot' then I call you a 'douche' and we'll just call it a day.

Anyway, I didn't plan on making another journal like this. I've made my point.

Haha! So the fact that the issues I agree with, like gay marriage and pro-choice are on the left, makes me a failure.

Nope, the fact that you've come out on the left side of the issues on a consistent basis makes your claims that you're anything other then liberal an obvious lie and when a lie's that obvious, its a failure.

Anyway, I didn't plan on making another journal like this. I've made my point.

You made the point that you lie about and misrepresent the facts and what others say and post a long time ago - this journal was redundant.

It was also interesting to see that of the people who voted against the amendment, all of them were men; or put another way, all women, whether Republican or Democrat, voted for the amendment.

Yeah, that was something I forgot to mention. Ironic, is it not? :3