Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't see my argument because you don't know the doctrine of "Prima Facie" which in legal terms means "on the face of it". You can have a law but if nobody ever enforces the law, the action is legal "on the face of it".
No, you arent getting away with this spin. You first claimed that it was legal to rape people, and that Republicans are pro-rape by not supporting this bill, then you claimed stories that claimed Bush wouldnt prosecute for rape, when stories made no such claim. You cant even keep your own story straight from one minute to another, all the while you keep proving that you dont even know the difference between civil penalties, and criminal ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
If you have a stretch of road and they pass a law that says "the speed limit on this road shall be 45 MPH" but no cop ever clocks traffic on the road or writes a ticket, on the face of it, the speed limit is really what you determine is safe and viable for you and not the 45 MPH posted. In some states, you can use this theory as a defense in traffic court: Help! I Got a Ticket!
Your analagy is flawed, and infact BACKWARDS... The speeding ticket example is you proving that speeding SHOULD be legal, no one is proposing that rape be justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
The same thing applies in civil law- if your neighbour builds a garage that protrudes over your property line and you take no action for a certain number of years to enforce your claim, he will become the prima facie owner of that portion of your land he built the garage on.
Same flaw, who is claiming that people should be allowed to rape?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
Under Bush and AG Asscroft RAPE by contractors in Iraq was, on the face of it, LEGAL because Asscroft never prosecuted the cases.
There was a period of time when american contractors were exempt from criminal prosecution IN IRAQ.. PERIOD.. This exemption was passed by Prime Minister Ayad Allowi and applicable to IRAQI courts, not americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
And without the contractor being made liable civilly, the rapist got off scott free since the Iraqi government is not going to prosecute them. That is why this bill was needed.
WRONG, this waiver was removed ages ago, but if your statement is true, then why arent you shouting for CRIMINAL prosections to take place, and ONLY asking that these people should be PAID. Are you now pro-rapists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevK
And 30 Republicans now have to explain WHY they voted FOR RAPE which is why they are pissed off at Franken. They thought they could HIDE their votes.
And yet once again, you have contributed NOTHING to the topic but utter BS.. Total and utter BS, which proves you dont have a dam clue. NOTHING stopped these people from filing for civil penalties against those who did the raping. NOTHING..
Contractors are NOT part of the United States military. Not even close. They are private business contracted to the US military. They can and are SUED in the United States for liability by civilians and by members of the US military as well. If a driver for KBR is reckless and runs into a vehicle on base that belongs to a soldier, that soldier has a FULL right to sue KBR, the driver and, if defects were involved, the manufacturer of the vehicle. He cannot sue the military or the government. Contractors do not enjoy legal immunity.
Are you always this wrong? (yes, I know the answer is yes)
Contractors were indeed immune, thats what the whole dam thread is about.. the immunity
This immunity was removed during the BUSH administration...
U.S. warns Iraq contractors of immunity loss – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/us-warns-iraq-contractors-of-immunity-loss/ - broken link)
This immunity existed in IRAQI law, not american, where indeed courts have ALREADY RULED, that these contractors CAN BE SUED..
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Are you always this wrong? (yes, I know the answer is yes)
Contractors were indeed immune, thats what the whole dam thread is about.. the immunity
This immunity was removed during the BUSH administration...
U.S. warns Iraq contractors of immunity loss – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/us-warns-iraq-contractors-of-immunity-loss/ - broken link)
This immunity existed in IRAQI law, not american, where indeed courts have ALREADY RULED, that these contractors CAN BE SUED..
If this was true Franken would not have filed a bill and the Republicans would have voted FOR it because it was already settled law. But the Republicans thought it was too much for them to oppose RAPE and vote for it.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching
so if a employee rapes someone, then the employer is to blame, that is what I am garnering from this statement.
how quaint of the you to suggest that.
The employer is NOT automatically to blame. The plaintiff has to prove- and should have to prove- that the employer knew, or should have known, that the employee was a sexual predator and that the employer took no action to remove the threat from their workforce.
Am I the only one who finds it amazing that NOT ONE liberal here has called for the rapist to go to jail? The ONLY concern they have is if the victim is getting paid.
the senators actions were correct.
however lets get our own house cleaned up 1st. the rape issues are not there they are here even in K12.
and so is the war, its here, we dont need to invade outher countries we need to stop mexico from invading us. how bout stopping rape here? rapists looking for a better life?
If this was true Franken would not have filed a bill and the Republicans would have voted FOR it because it was already settled law. But the Republicans thought it was too much for them to oppose RAPE and vote for it.
The employer is NOT automatically to blame. The plaintiff has to prove- and should have to prove- that the employer knew, or should have known, that the employee was a sexual predator and that the employer took no action to remove the threat from their workforce.
Quote:
NOT automatically to blame
it sounds like you are saying that since the men were employed by the company, that the company is automatically guilty before innocent just because the men who did the crime were employed there.
Are you always this wrong? (yes, I know the answer is yes)
Contractors were indeed immune, thats what the whole dam thread is about.. the immunity
This immunity was removed during the BUSH administration...
U.S. warns Iraq contractors of immunity loss – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/us-warns-iraq-contractors-of-immunity-loss/ - broken link)
This immunity existed in IRAQI law, not american, where indeed courts have ALREADY RULED, that these contractors CAN BE SUED..
Certain courts made that ruling, but it was not settled law, it was for that particular court's jurisdiction ONLY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
