Please Franken Don’t Hurt ‘Em

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark and WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: Please Franken Don’t Hurt ‘Em: Manu Raju, who’s really dominated the Sen. Al Franken (D-Mi… http://bit.ly/8g21PK [...]

HAHAHAHAHAA WOW!! THE REPUKES ARE JUST PLAIN DUMB!

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: Please Franken Don’t Hurt ‘Em http://bit.ly/5QcPL2...

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Never mind that no one in the Congress has asserted this, as the Republicans are so fond of doing. In fact, those who demand that Franken proclaim their innocence for them are doing it now, i.e., they're pointing fingers and declaring that someone is wrong.

I think the divisive partisanship in the Congress — and in everyday life — is part and parcel of the pro-war culture. For as long as most of us go about our lives thinking “us vs. them,” and wondering who his/her enemies are, we will look to war as a solution.

After all, when you reduce everything to black and white, you clear the way for violence.

If the Republicans would like to take a moment to explain why internal arbitration for gang rape is acceptable I will certainly listen. Please, go ahead… Personally I am happy to have outspoken Senators such as Franken.

But does Franken believe that? For that matter, does anybody believe that? This was such a stupid amendment to vote against. There was clearly no way to spin a “no” vote on this one, and besides that, it does kind of seem like one of those issues that's innately bipartisan. In all seriousness, did the Republicans who voted against the amendment think that there was any way to spin this so that any woman would think that forced arbitration as a means of settling rape allegations should be something that tax payers should be financially supporting?

Because that's the bottom line. Republicans would have gone into group cardiac arrest if the stupak or nelson amendments hadn't passed (and are frankly still on the brink), and yet they support federal money going to pay companies who contractually force essentially closed door arbitration on gang rape victims? How could they think that would be more acceptable to the American taxpayer? It defies logic. If you work for one of these contractors and are raped (gang or otherwise) and end up pregnant, the GOP will not support your ability to decide to have an abortion or payment for it, but they do want to continue paying your employer (with our money) while you fight for a day in court….So 'yes' to rape, but 'no' to a woman's right to choose to abort the pregnancy. I guess being completely anti-choice is somewhat consistent…

You can hate Obama, you can hate Pelosi, hell, you can hate all Democrats- elected or not- but if you're a woman and are instead supporting the Republicans, you may want to consider becoming an Independent because the GOP has been very clear in that they couldn't care less about you.

Franken shouldn't even consider making any variety of clarification until the Republicans who voted against the bill clarify their position on women's rights and, hard to believe I'm writing this, rape.

But does Franken believe that? For that matter, does anybody believe that? This was such a stupid amendment to vote against. There was clearly no way to spin a “no” vote on this one, and besides that, it does kind of seem like one of those issues that's innately bipartisan. In all seriousness, did the Republicans who voted against the amendment think that there was any way to spin this so that any woman would think that forced arbitration as a means of settling rape allegations should be something that tax payers should be financially supporting?

Because that's the bottom line. Republicans would have gone into group cardiac arrest if the stupak or nelson amendments hadn't passed (and are frankly still on the brink), and yet they support federal money going to pay companies who contractually force essentially closed door arbitration on gang rape victims? How could they think that would be more acceptable to the American taxpayer? It defies logic. If you work for one of these contractors and are raped (gang or otherwise) and end up pregnant, the GOP will not support your ability to decide to have an abortion or payment for it, but they do want to continue paying your employer (with our money) while you fight for a day in court….So 'yes' to rape, but 'no' to a woman's right to choose to abort the pregnancy. I guess being completely anti-choice is somewhat consistent…

You can hate Obama, you can hate Pelosi, hell, you can hate all Democrats- elected or not- but if you're a woman and are instead supporting the Republicans, you may want to consider becoming an Independent because the GOP has been very clear in that they couldn't care less about you.

Franken shouldn't even consider making any variety of clarification until the Republicans who voted against the bill clarify their position on women's rights and, hard to believe I'm writing this, rape.