Search results

no, it says the USA will not contract with businesses that have this or that wording in there contracts.

nothing, under capitalism.

NAMBLA is a good one for the list of terrorist organization. The fact that it exists shows the faults with your "free speech"

yep

the poor in your country do not have adequate health care.

how? by being picky with who one does business with? so my your reasoning if bin-laden came in with the lowest big we should do business with him. and anyway socialist ideas are better than your capitalist BS. I would love to see the USA get rid of ALL socialist ideas and ideals...

how, this girl is shit out of luck. it's about future actions. and how is the federal gov't stepping out of it's bounds my being particular with who it does business with. I don't watch Mel Gibson movies, I don't make anyone else not watch them (even in my own house) am I overstepping...

i hit "next" on your link. you were cherry picking.

It's about actions, not thought. You can think what you want, I can think what I want. Hell if I acted on some of my thoughts, I would be a terrorist, but I don't, so I am just a person.

well, someone is an idiot the bill isn't about rape, it's about who the US does business with, and what clauses they have on their contracts.

but the people doing that aren't arabs....so it can't be terrorism (propaganda has worked, it seems)

well, criminal...I doubt there are extradition laws (but that would be nice)

HAHAHAHA that is funny. sure you can, you just sign on the dotted line.

neither have you really. You can't claim McVeigh wasn't terrorism, if you are claiming 9/11 was. (well you can CLAIM it, you would just be wrong)

It was halliburton, working for the US armed forces, I don't know who had juristition. Her case is lost, this law is prevent it happening again.

not if your contract is worded that you can't. you can try, but the lawyers file and injunction, and it is thrown out of court.

your right, now if only they called it the rape clause.

yeah, I can see where your motivations come from.

well, I am using your logic, not my own, so I can't help but sounding that way.

they can't because of the clause in her contract. She is not allowed bringing charges, all complaints have to be handled by binding arbitration. If she could bring charges, then there would be no argument.