Originally Posted by jmsocia
Duncan, I would hardly say that Republicans oppose that law. I guess what I would say is if Franken felt so strongly about it why didn't he actually introduce it as a bill instead of trying to slip it through as an amendment on a defense appropriations bill. Must look at the big picture instead of picking and choosing what fits your argument.
I especially like the fact that your first sentence was...
"Senator Al Franken introduced a BILL that would allow people (women) to sue their employers if they are raped on the job." yet further down in the paragraph you say "Franken introduced the bill (OR AN AMENDMENT TO)" as if there is no difference. I know why because if you would have specified amendment to an unrelated bill in the first sentence your argument isn't as shocking and doesn't make the point you want it to make. (BTW why did you specify that it allows only WOMEN?)


First, it wasn't an unrelated bill. It was a defense appropriations bill and the amendment clarifies who's qualified to make bids for defense contracts funded by those appropriations.

And the amendment had nothing to do with the rest of the bill passing. The vote on the amendment was whether to attach the requirement to the appropriations bill, not whether to pass the bill with it attached.

No one who cast a vote on this amendment had any reason to consider other than whether they thought it was a good idea.

Naomi: If women would just stay out of the workplace in general, there'd be a lot fewer sexual harrassment suits, I imagine. And if we flogged them if they drank alcohol or required them to always be with a male relative when they left the house, we could cut way down on date rapes, too.
And by golly, let's make them cover their whole bodies except their eyes, the cursed temptresses, lest they corrupt some poor innocent "stressed-out" man into raping them wherever they are.

"Old fashioned." Lordy, what low self-esteem you must have.