GOP Senators Who Opposed The Franken Amendment (in Debates)

Meet The Senators Who Opposed Al Franken's Bill To End Rape Cover-Ups

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

Wow... 30 people voted against it... My hope for a brighter future of humanity has, once again, dimmed out a little bit more...

Says the man with the Nihilism user pic. LOL

I'm resurrecting this thread with all the other pro-right threads popping up this week.

Here's a site dedicated to making sure this crap never happens again: http://www.republicansforrape.org/

Ok, it's a bit parody-ish, but it get's the point across.

And here are the Republicans who opposed the Franken Amendment: http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

LB, I appreciate this being brought to the fore.

But I am assuming there was some back-scratching going on up in there. Do you listen to This American Life? They had an ep once about how a whole session of the House was basically a free-for-all where nothing was as it seemed, even after the dust settled.

Let's not forget Al is new, with a begrudged win at best. And let's hope the Dems at least get something from that atrocious Rep showing in the vote you mention.

I'll note that good ol' Grassley, from my home state of Iowa, was not one of the 30. Good for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kiZIlMFto
Here's a 7 minute clip of Al Franken, and Jamie Leigh Jones's testimony within the Senate.

Thank you Cube.

Sorry, 10 minute clip. Anyway, it shows the opposition trying to defend itself..

Unfortunately, this is how congress works. It's sad to think that we can't all agree on basic things like rape is bad, and should be reported and investigated.

I didn't realize this parallel until now, so thanks for bringing it up

Congress removed funding from ACORN on the possibility that it was helping prostitutes. Yet reporting rape is controversial?

ﾓOne unintended - and positive - consequence of the witch hunt against ACORN is that it could help rein in the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater and even Wall St," she said in the statement. "If the standard is that organizations that have broken the law shouldnﾒt get federal money, then letﾒs set that standard consistently. There are numerous corporations that have been proven records of malfeasance."
The head of ACORN's take on the situation

Just to be fair
The voting record on the ACORN amendment 83-7

Where was Al Franken when Ted Kennedy was alive and got away with his murder coverup? Wait I know...nm.

Congress being corrupt? Just Republicans? Just Democrats? ... this is not one side vs. another... There has been so much corruption in Government, from Watergate, to "I didn't inhale", or girls hiding under the oval office desk... and on and on

Woot! You completely didn't change my views! I still hate both parties! Yay!!!!!

More Ted Kennedy Kev? Guess this one just deserves to be swept under the rug, huh? After all, it's not like it's another ACORN story or anything...

"Woot! You completely didn't change my views! I still hate both parties!"

Awesome!

Where was Al Franken when Ted Kennedy was alive and got away with his murder coverup?
Yeah, that's fair criticism.</s>

Congress being corrupt? Just Republicans? Just Democrats? ... this is not one side vs. another... There has been so much corruption in Government
I showed you the ACORN voting record, explain the difference please.

lol swept under the rug? huh? Nothing should be just swept under the rug, man. The point of this thread is an attack on the GOP, no? What is the point of this thread then? I'm confused. And it's not 'more' TK.. you carried our CMs into here, so I just followed. Again confused. There are a ton of attempts at coverups in the history of Congress. And again, it's not just one side that is guilty of it.

I would agree on you being confused.

^please feel free to explain? :)

Wow, that's bad news bears. O.O

"you carried our CMs into here, .."

If you notice, I started this thread back on the 8th. If anything, I carried the topic from here to our chat.

Still, bringing up Kennedy on this thread? Completely uncalled for.

could an admin please move this to debates? ; )

It's not a debate. No need to move it there.

it is a debate! if it wasn't it is now since we just chose to support differing viewpoints. ; )

the debate and discussion is for debates and discussions. one has some rules, the other is open ended or rules are determined by the original poster.

it is respectful of your fellow community members that if you are going to go political or religious to put it in the proper forum for these things. i am not asking you to agree with me lb, i am merely asking the admins to moderate the forums.

again, i would appreciate it if an admin would move this to the appropriate forum.

LB, would you care if it moved there? I can see dude's point. It's become a debate. If nothing can get moved, then we'll need a new forum called: "Things That Should Be Moved To Debate".

You see what I mean?

LB,

Let me ask you to be totally honest.

When you posted this link, did not you believe that someone would come to the conservative side at some point to try to counter more liberal biased journalism?

Correct or incorrect, it reeks of bias to me.

Which, I think we both know would end up in a --- Debate of sorts.

Yes, I agree with Dude, this should be moved to debate and would do it if I could.

Debates is the proper venue for threads of this nature, as the subject lends itself to the flinging of opinions.

"LB, would you care if it moved there?"

Sut, my main problem is with the restrictions on the Debate forum, which I have pointed out on another thread. It does not allow for the open ended discussion I would have preferred here. It's not like it's enforced well anyway, but my opinion on the rules for threads in that forum stands.

"When you posted this link, did not you believe that someone would come to the conservative side.."

Some conservative responses here was exactly what I was hoping for. Sadly, you are not commenting on the issue itself, but on where it should be.

And yes, I posted it from a liberal source. Much like you post links from Fox News.

This hijack has gone on long enough. I would really like to see some right wing responses to the actual topic that aren't "wah, but some liberal did [something else] at one point!" or "liberal media!"

What specific piece of the debates forum rules do you feel limits discussion of the topic?

LB,

I have little idea about reasons why they voted as they did. I could not find much information on this bill and the pro/con arguemtns. Hence, I would be a poor person to give the conservative opinion on this subject.

On the surface, however, I feel those who voted nay on this voted wrong. If I can find more information, my opinion may be subject to change.

Slayer: http://www.carnageblender.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002uMw

However, re-reading certain parts of the rules, I can see where I might be mistaken. I was under the impression that all threads in the Debates forum had to be, you know, debates, specifically following debate rules. One can certainly understand the confusion.

"I have little idea about reasons why they voted as they did. I could not find much information on this bill and the pro/con arguemtns."

Did you search beyond conservative biased sources?

I read the rules as such:

You can have a discussion post.
You can have a debate post.

In either post type rules 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 apply, these are just the common courtesy rules.

In a discussion thread it ends there, and you can discuss as you want.

In a debate thread rules 5 and 6 apply as well.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted the wording of the rules.