The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: bkg on November 07, 2009, 11:12:56 PM
-
Klobuchar and Frankin are my senators....
Why even bother calling them? 99% of MN citizens could call, write, chizel "vote no on healthcare" on each of their foreheads, and they would still vote for it. And cap-n-tax.
So WTF does a person do?
-
I KNOW what I would do......
-
I KNOW what I would do......
Umm... wanna share?
I'm asking a serious question. Sounds sarcastic, but it isn't.
-
The only thing you can do, tell 'em what you think of their vote, and keep telling them. Don't stop. Remind them you are a voter and will not forget.
-
The only thing you can do, tell 'em what you think of their vote, and keep telling them. Don't stop. Remind them you are a voter and will not forget.
They obvioulsy don't care about that any more. As long as the idiot citizens keep re-electing these assbags it only re-enforces their mindset that they can do anything they want and the people be damned.
-
Does your state have a recall provision? Do you have the money?
-
Take over or start a NEWSPAPER. Seems to me that there ought to be some VERY cheap hardware and software out there. Make the news stright up, make the Ed and op ed pages utterly partizan conservative. Hold the senators up to editorial ridicule as often as humanly possible, but BE ACCURATE. Use their own voting records against them, Bill 123456 contains provison Y that.......and Sen. Jerkwater VOTED for THIS! Wrong as he/she can be!!! Sen Jerkwater REFUSES to meet with our reporter, Georgette Muckraker........we'd LIKE to ask him.......
A garage can be the location to start from. Get them FREE in grocery stores, etc. Ask for advertizers to defray costs. As there are plenty of unemployed out there, volunteer help might be easier to get than you think.
Download Sun Tzu's "ART OF WAR", read it several times model your campaign to include Sun's advice. Make it the SOP for the entire "staff" as time passes.
Remember, tough but honest, pay your spies well, attack the enemy at his weakest point.
-
We have an elderly lady here who has done that. Great editorials and not PC. Her paper is now the most widely read in the area- and still free!
-
While a great idea, when you travel 30-40% of the time and work 60-80 hours a week, it's difficult for a person to take up such endeavor. Not an excuse, just a reality. Same reason why you don't see a lot of conservatives at mid-week protest events.
Beyond marketing the truth and conservative message, there's honestly not a lot a person in as deep a blue state as me can do. Share the truth? sure! Vote Senators out? Not for five more years. Attempt a recall? never happen in MN, and it's also (while a great idea), a defensive and unfortunately an after-the-fact measure when it comes to this healthcare bill.
Any other thoughts?
-
Any other thoughts?
Hang tight, and pray.
I know I'm in a minority here, but I don't think any of this is going to come to pass.
I think other events, related and unrelated to this, are going to interfere, and so it's going to come to.....nothing.
However, not being God, I can't say for sure.
But that's what I think; it's not going to come to anything, in the end.
-
Hang tight, and pray.
I know I'm in a minority here, but I don't think any of this is going to come to pass.
I think other events, related and unrelated to this, are going to interfere, and so it's going to come to.....nothing.
However, not being God, I can't say for sure.
But that's what I think; it's not going to come to anything, in the end.
I don't share your optimism. We have a congress who has pissed on the Constitution and gives to shits about freedome or liberty. We're 12T in debt, intentionally devaluing the dollar... I'm quite cynical.
-
Klobuchar and Frankin are my senators....
Why even bother calling them? 99% of MN citizens could call, write, chizel "vote no on healthcare" on each of their foreheads, and they would still vote for it. And cap-n-tax.
So WTF does a person do?
Hi,
First of all look at the positive side and I am not being funny. We have half your problem here in Florida in Bill Nelson. We also have some very active 9-12 and patriot groups that absolutely "loathe" the man who cares little for those who hire him.
My guess is to maintain some sort of sanity you should seek out groups like I mentioned and get very active. You will likely be amazed at the number of folks that feel as you do. Once you start participating, going to tea parties, and protesting you will feel like at least you are doing something.
We have a governor here in Charlie Crist who wants to be our next senator. Even though he is supposedly republican, conservative would not be a word to describe him. We are all getting very active with Marco Rubio and it is starting to gain national attention. If Rubio can win the nomination it will send shock waves throughout the country.
I am not trying to be funny, but to keep your sanity, you need to find folks with some common sense and down to earth conservative values. Then band together and do what you can to change things. Good luck.
regards,
5412
-
Here's a question: What did you think about the new bill Frankin tried to pass to make it illegal for Halliburton to make female employees sign a contract that says they cannot sue the company if a supervisor or superior rapes them in Iraq?
Do you know that every republican in attendance voted no? How can you possibly justify this? Republicans stated they felt the government should not be stepping in to reprimand and/or set rules and regulations for private sector companies. Ummmmmmmm....... Isn't that what they are trying to do with ACORN???
-
Link, please.
-
please hold
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPbcCDPGcv8
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPbcCDPGcv8
Hey, ****knuckle--Maddow is about as useful a source as the National Enquirer.
-
please hold
-
Hey, ****knuckle--Maddow is about as useful a source as the National Enquirer.
You're kidding me? This idiot is trying to use Meaty Fingers Maddow as a credible source?
Has she figured out there's a Preamble to the Constitution yet?
-
You're kidding me? This idiot is trying to use Meaty Fingers Maddow as a credible source?
Has she figured out there's a Preamble to the Constitution yet?
I'm still waiting for her to retract her earlier statement/rant on how Hasan wasn't involved with THIS:
(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/7/2009/11/500x_custom_1257467246594_homeland_security.jpg)
And yeah, I saw her flapping her rug muncher on the subject last week.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPbcCDPGcv8
Really an avowed liberal political commentator is the source.............anything of context to this story on why they votd the way they did..?
-
Really an avowed liberal political commentator is the source.............anything of context to this story on why they votd the way they did..?
Guys, he said "please hold". He's posting in between MSNBC commercial breaks. He's got to get his daily bread from Keef and Butch. He'll be back when they tell him what to think.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc
Oh, great--we go from Madcow to Crooks and Liars.
You are not long for this world, noob.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny0ngvyqVCc
So a troll that refers to us as "sheep" wants us to believe everything we see on a YouTube video?
I miss the days when Libtard trolls were a challenge.
What's your DU name hutch?
-
Second clip is from Republican Thad Cochran who voted against the bill and states why in his own words - HOW IS THAT BIASED. And I am saying please hold so I can find you the links.
-
I'll believe that liberals care about women whenever they publicly condemn Kennedy and Dodd on the floor of the US Senate for their "waitress sandwich" routines.
.
-
Second clip is from Republican Thad Cochran who voted against the bill and states why in his own words - HOW IS THAT BIASED. And I am saying please hold so I can find you the links.
How about using your own words and your own thoughts to tell us.
You know...do what you accuse us of not doing.
:whatever:
-
Is this another one of "deportliberals" personalities?
-
The floor debate preceding the vote brought Minnesota's junior senator, a Democrat, head-to-head with the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Sessions also pointed out that the Department of Defense opposed the amendment.
LINK (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors)
So, tell me what is fundamentally wrong with a company telling their employees that in civil matters, they should seek arbitration first. The woman in question CLAIMS she was raped. Nobody was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any such act. So does that somehow mean that if we are to work under a government contract we should submit to conditions that are so onerous as to drive one out of business?
Nobody is saying that if this woman was in fact assaulted that the guilty parties shouldn't be brought to justice. What you're trying to paint is that somehow you want to associate responsible contractual obligations between employer and employee to be portrayed as somehow evil and heartless.
-
LINK (http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors)
So, tell me what is fundamentally wrong with a company telling their employees that in civil matters, they should seek arbitration first. The woman in question CLAIMS she was raped. Nobody was ever charged, let alone convicted, of any such act. So does that somehow mean that if we are to work under a government contract we should submit to conditions that are so onerous as to drive one out of business?
Nobody is saying that if this woman was in fact assaulted that the guilty parties shouldn't be brought to justice. What you're trying to paint is that somehow you want to associate responsible contractual obligations between employer and employee to be portrayed as somehow evil and heartless.
thanks for answering my question to dutch's brother hutch :-)
I knew that answer already.............but dumbass links to a political commentator and it calls us the groupthink sheep :lmao:
-
Radio guy: What opinion do you want me to share with you? I think that gang raping an employee is wrong and I think the republicans that voted against the bill did so because Al Franken proposed it. If a republican proposed that bill, I guarantee that it would have passed without any objection from the left simply because they are smart enough not to vote for companies to have a legal right to make employees sign contracts that makes gang-rape A-OK. i think the reason republicans will never win another major election is simply because of stupid moves like this. And honestly, I can't find you guys a FOX News snippet of this coverage because guess what - THEY DIDN'T COVER IT. I guess they realized the terrible light this would place the right in. What I am asking for - is an honest conservative to tell me why in the world they would vote against this bill. Can you? And if you can, would you let your wife sign that contract? Or, better yet, work for a company that even presented such a contract?
USA4ME: Wasn't it John McCain that cheated on his wife when she was sick with Cancer? And while I forget the name of the guy, I also believe it was a republican who cheated on his wife with a man in a bathroom stall. Let's not pretend any politicians - rep or dem give to sh*ts about their wives or loved ones.
-
Oh, and FWIW dipshit, here's a link from HuffPo, just so you don't think we're all evil mean kitten-eating Rethuglicans or anything:
LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html)
"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment," reads a message sent from the administration to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote.
"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," reads the DoD note. "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."
Kind of dovetails to what I said earlier, doesn't it?
-
Crazy, you live up to your name. The issue is this: Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them. One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself. Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not. How did we learn of this issue? A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men. She could not because she had signed this contract. Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home. Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident. Why didn't she report it until she got home? Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.
-
USA4ME: Wasn't it John McCain that cheated on his wife when she was sick with Cancer? And while I forget the name of the guy, I also believe it was a republican who cheated on his wife with a man in a bathroom stall. Let's not pretend any politicians - rep or dem give to sh*ts about their wives or loved ones.
If that's the case, then the last thing you should be pressing as an issue is any Senator who voted either for or against this bill.
Your rhetoric is that of someone who can never be open-minded, something that doesn't interest conservatives in general since we are willing to examine both sides. For instance, making claims that it was only opposed because Franken brought it up (which, as you state, it's doubtful if he cares at all about his wife or loved ones), or that if a R had brought this forward it would have been approved by them, or your comments on Fox News or Rush, etc... You aren't saying anything that I can't find a liberal equivalent and make the same statements. Are you trying to convince yourself that if a conservative were to go to a lib board and do that to you, that you'd have a different reaction to them than you're getting here?
You're just not that bright. If you were smart, you would have come here humbly and in meekness stating your desires to talk, saying the same types of things that you would have said were you talking to us face to face, but you didn't. Oh well.
.
-
The Franken amendment is very broad (http://www.ldjackson.net/news-politics/rape-arbitration-and-the-franken-amendment/comment-page-1/) and, in fact, I deliberately omitted a very important part of the claims it is meant to cover. In addition to the issues faced by Jones the amendment would also include “any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of…. negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.†(italics added). Franken’s addition of the italicized portions has received almost no play in the press (should I say the “liberal press?â€). They essentially encompass the vast majority of employee grievances including termination or discrimination based on sex, religion, age, disability, or minority status. These become irrelevant because the arbitrator is under no obligation to consider all the merits of the claimant. Franken’s amendment, therefore, effectively bars defense contractors from imposing binding arbitration on employees under any circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that arbitration is a legitimate process.
What are the odds this will survive it's first court challenge? But Frankenstein will be claiming brownie points until it's trashed, I'm sure.
-
Crazy, you live up to your name. The issue is this: Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them. One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself. Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not. How did we learn of this issue? A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men. She could not because she had signed this contract. Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home. Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident. Why didn't she report it until she got home? Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.
BZZZZZTTTTT!!!! WRONG!!!!!
She can still seek redress against the company via arbitration. Guess what? I bet if I looked somewhere deep in my employee contract and/or union contract, the same little clause exists!
And if a contractor is on assignment under US government contract and they commit a crime, guess what? THEY'RE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER US LAW, UNLESS THEY COMMITTED THE OFFENSE AGAINST A FOREIGN NATIONAL, AND IF THERE IS NO SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement), THEN THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE HOST NATION.
Isn't that amazing?
So now I have a question for you, little noob--if she was in fact raped, why didn't she report it BEFORE coming back to CONUS?
-
What are the odds this will survive it's first court challenge? But Frankenstein will be claiming brownie points until it's trashed, I'm sure.
Ah, so Franken wanted to handcuff corps from binding any arbitration, in turn making it where their legal costs of operating overseas could skyrocket. Even on his radio show he was constantly harping on corps taking jobs elsewhere. Nothing like providing the opportunity for gov't to limit freedom while lining their own pockets to drum liberals in line for a lockstep vote.
.
-
Here's a question: What did you think about the new bill Frankin tried to pass to make it illegal for Halliburton to make female employees sign a contract that says they cannot sue the company if a supervisor or superior rapes them in Iraq?
Why do they need another law? It's already covered under the EEOC. If Halliburton is doing that, which I seriously do NOT believe as I know people who work for that great firm, they're in the wrong and subject to litigation.
Do you know that every republican in attendance voted no? How can you possibly justify this? Republicans stated they felt the government should not be stepping in to reprimand and/or set rules and regulations for private sector companies. Ummmmmmmm....... Isn't that what they are trying to do with ACORN???
Again, if there's already a law that covers it, I'm in agreement. Reason? Because it's nothing but an additional law to get media exposure by a media whore. Like dumbass hate crimes legislation.
-
Here's a question: What did you think about the new bill Frankin tried to pass to make it illegal for Halliburton to make female employees sign a contract that says they cannot sue the company if a supervisor or superior rapes them in Iraq?
Do you know that every republican in attendance voted no? How can you possibly justify this? Republicans stated they felt the government should not be stepping in to reprimand and/or set rules and regulations for private sector companies. Ummmmmmmm....... Isn't that what they are trying to do with ACORN???
That's a lie in bold.
Why not tell the truth and not give lies and falsehoods.
-
Crazy, you live up to your name. The issue is this: Haliburton and other overseas (Iraq) contractors have contracts that they require all employees to sign prior to working for them. One company was found to have included in their contract, that if any employee was raped by a supervisor or superior, they would have to waive their rights to sue the company itself. Now, that doesn't mean that they cannot report the perp or file claims against him/her, but they cannot go after the company itself - whether they know of the problem of not. How did we learn of this issue? A woman tried to sue the company she was working for because she was raped by her boss and up to three other men. She could not because she had signed this contract. Guess what, she could also not have them arrested because the attacks allegedly occured in Iraq and she had not reported the incident until she had returned home. Local authorities had no authority to prosecute for crimes committed overseas and federal authorities had no way to officially prove or disprove the incident. Why didn't she report it until she got home? Shickingly, she was ashamed and didn't know where to turn when overseas, in another country, without any true law enforcement or any way to ensure her own protection.
Hey ****-nuts. Get out of my thread. You're worthless.
-
A contract that is in violation of public policy is voidable on its' face by the agreeved party. That is, rape is against public policy. If a rape occured/occurs, and one has signed a contract saying they agree to take no action, well, that would be voidable by the victom. But, that did not happen. Why? Could it be because there was no rape? Because there WERE criminal and civil remidies in place that were adequate?
So the proposed law by the SEN Stewart Smalley is completely unnecessary , redundant, and itself is a violation of the public policy.