>> ^Tymbrwulf:
>> ^NetRunner:
^Wouldn't this apply to the amendment that Franken passed that dished out a punishment for KBR/Halliburton? Would that be considered a Bill of Attainder?

Except that Franken's bill doesn't punish KBR, unless they -continue- to force binding arbitration on their contractors who are victimized in clearly egregious violent crimes. His bill doesn't remove funding from KBR. It stops -future- funding from any company that, in the future, forces blanket acceptance of binding arbitration.

This Acorn bill stops funding in retaliation for past actions, no matter what changes they may make. That's the very definition of a bill of attainder.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Well, since things are going to hell, and taxocraps are running the show, it's more believable this fat-faced loudmouth along with the tax cheats, maoists, race-baiters and other incumbent incompetents are to blame. Oh, and the idiots who voted for a Teleprompteresident.


Class.

Your post made me imagine a fat crying toddler screaming and crying and calling another kid poopyface.

Being that civil must be downright painful.

>> ^Raaagh:
>>
how the hell did u decipher that?
ta


You have to pay attention to the whole video. I had no idea it was about ACORN until the very end, but it was pretty obvious that Mr. Grayson was pointing out that whatever this bill was he was talking about was singling out an organization and punishing it, and that it was likely true because the guy he was asking to explain it was doing anything he could not to answer the questions.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Mr. Doofus: ...

Class.

You know, you really should be thanking the man for his civility. Sometimes he's rather rude. But no, Rush Limbaugh will love you more if you just act like an utter prick, so you do that. Can you explain to me why every conservative on the internet commenting on these videos has no class or civility?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...as a Democrat he only wants to apply that standard to entities that he politically favors....
...Mr.Doofus...
...Mr.Doofus...
...Mr.Doofus...


You really ooze logical unbiased argument Pennypacker.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.
Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.
The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.
It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.


Wouldn't this apply to the amendment that Franken passed that dished out a punishment for KBR/Halliburton? Would that be considered a Bill of Attainder?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here and trying to discern the difference.

Also, I'd like to interpret Winstonfield_Pennypacker's post to what I saw it as:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution(Attack aimed at the Democratic Party). Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Grayson: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Mr. Brown: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Grayson: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Mr. Brown: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."(but it IS a Bill of Attainder)
I assume Mr. Grayson believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it(He quoted and interpreted the constitution in a way that even I was able to interpret this bill as a Bill of Retainder, and I'm not a politician). Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides)(this also applies to your posts as well). Mr. Grayson is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? (Personal attack on Grayson, expletive deleted). I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.


Take away your blatant lies and personal attacks and you're just re-iterating what was in the video without bringing any new information into light. NetRunner at least explains his comments and tries to inform the sift public what the hell the video is about. I'd like to ignore your comments, but it's amusing to watch you employ tactics to try and prove a point.

You are becoming more transparent with every post.

Carry on.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution. Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Doofus: "Are bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "I asked you if bills of attainder were bad."
Guy: "This isn't a bill of attainder."
Mr. Doofus: "Answer my question. Aren't bills of attainder bad?"
Guy: "Sure - but this isn't a bill of attainder."
I assume Mr. Doofus believes that if enough people hear him call something that isn't a bill of attainder a bill of attainder enough then someone may start believing it. Politicians have a pretty long history of using technicalities, buearucrat-speak, legalese, and other textual skullduggery to get around the Constitution to accomplish political objectives (this applies to both sides). Mr. Doofus is a pot calling a kettle black in that regard. Congress has been violating constitutional law for decades, and he's getting all testy now? What a dingus. I guess that's what politicians do best though. Blame others for their own faults.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^NetRunner:
^ The topic under discussion was the bill that would strip ACORN of all Federal funding, because it's supposedly corrupt.
Now, pay attention when they talk about why bills of attainder are wrong. To paraphrase, it's to keep Congress from taking on issues that should be the purview of the judicial branch -- namely determining the guilt or innocence of the accused, and meting out punishments for the guilty.
The move to strip ACORN of Federal dollars is entirely about trying to use the legislature to pass judgment on alleged criminal activity, and dispense a punishment.
It's set up so that perhaps there's a way to narrowly define "punishment" so it doesn't count, but any rational person knows that's the entire point of the bill.


how the hell did u decipher that?
ta

you misspelled mr. grayson

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if only he could start practicing what he preaches and stop his party from stiff-arming the constitution. Here is the conversion simplified.
Mr. Doofus: ...

Your video, Alan Grayson Schools Georgia Republican On The Constitution, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Here are the assertions Beck ascribed to "liberals":

1. If you're against health care you hate the poor.
   
2. If you oppose their "climate change bill", you hate the planet, or are flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If you oppose illegal immigration you're anti-hispanic.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's just because Obama is black.
   
5. If you oppose Obama's budget deficits, you must have been okay with Bush's (and are a hypocrite).
   
6. If you "support the troops", you're a warmonger.
   
7. If you attend a tea party, you're crazy.
   
8. If you "support traditional marriage", you're a homophobe.
   
9. If you oppose abortion, you're against women.
   
10. If you oppose the fairness doctrine, you hate diversity.
    
11. If you oppose "strong-arm" unions, you're against the workers.
    

He then characterizes the sum total of all those arguments to be a form of discriminatory hate speech.

As someone who spends a lot of time wallowing in liberal swill, let me correct Beck's assertions:

1. If you're against universal health care, you don't care if the poor live or die.
   
2. If you refuse to believe that human activity has been changing the climate in ways that will cause humankind harm, you are a flat-earth moon landing denier.
   
3. If your only solution to illegal immigration is to engage in massive police action against those who've immigrated illegally, you're anti-hispanic, anti-muslim, and generally a bigoted xenophobic moron who doesn't believe in individual human rights.
   
4. If you oppose the stimulus, it's because you are either a) a moron who thinks government spending can't help a sagging economy, or b) a partisan who's more interested in scoring political points than helping the country.
   
5. If you're going to go out into the streets and protest deficits in 2009, you should have been doing it ever since Bush's tax cuts turned a budget surplus into a deficit. Also, there should have been a large contingent of the so-called conservative base against continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the cost. But there wasn't, so there are lots of people who only believe in keeping spending in check when it's a Democratic administration doing the spending, and that destroys your credibility on the subject. (Shorter alternative: The left protests spending tax money to kill people, while the right protests spending tax money to save people.)
   
6. If you think the only way to "support the troops" is to keep them in harm's way indefinitely without clear goals, then you're a warmonger, and definitely not supporting the troops!
   
7. Most of the people attending the tea parties were crazy, or crazy-tolerant. A lot of people were protesting against conspiracy theories (e.g. death panels). A lot of people were threatening violence. A lot of people were using racial imagery or language. No one seemed to mind their presence at the rally, or asked them to leave. If there were reasonable people there, they let the crazies usurp their message, and that reflects poorly on them.
   
8. If you oppose civil unions with equal legal benefits for gay couples, you're a homophobe. (As an aside, if Beck's objecting to being called a homophobe, it's more proof we've already won this fight, since even the right believes that word has a negative connotation that they're uncomfortable with)
   
9. If you support criminalizing abortion, you fundamentally don't trust women to be able to make important decisions about their health and life, and that's sexist.
   
10. We're pretty divided about the fairness doctrine, actually. Our smear against opposition to it would be about conservative elites wanting to preserve their for-profit propaganda enterprises though, not about "diversity".
    
11. If you oppose making it easier for workers unionize (which is what the Employee Free Choice Act would do), you're against the workers.
    

If "liberals" are to be demonized for what they say, let's at least start with what they're actually saying.

I would also point out that the language I used is often more harsh than what any real Democratic representative would use in public. The Republican party leadership has no problem talking about death panels, birth certificates, baby-murder, yelling "You lie!" at the president in a formal address, or any other extremist language.

Alan Grayson came dangerously close to saying #1, and everyone was completely shocked that a Democratic freshman congressman would say such a thing.

Your video, Alan Grayson on Bill Maher, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^HadouKen24:
I like Grayson's populism. I suspect it's far more genuine than the faux populism of the Republican leadership. But let's face it: his sound bites are pretty vacuous. Not as vacuous as the stuff put out by the Right (death panels? lol), but still ungrounded in any real critical thinking.
I say this as an independent, though one strongly in favor of a public option.


As much as I would tend to agree that civility is needed--Mr. Grayson is not helping in that regard--and although he is exaggerating (about the kindest way to put it), as long as Republicans are resisting without being constructive his ultimate point is fair. A lack of a plan might as well be a plan to cause what the absence of any reform would allow to happen.

Whatever happens, if Republicans brought a constructive debate, and even if it went largely ignored, it would be far more helpful to move forward at least SEEKING to compromise and get something done. So far it seems Republicans are only interested in compromise that removes elements of the Democratic plans, and that's not really compromise.

I too speak as an Independent (mildly Libertarian), and I too am in favor of the public option. Free markets work best with healthy competition, which is not what they have right now in this particular sector. Force them to really compete, and maybe eventually we can even pull back on the public option completely after we have spurred diversity and true competition in this market.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.