>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

So ACORN has a few bad nuts and we should stop giving them any federal money? How about Blackwater, I mean Xe, and other benefactors of federal money that have done some seriously F'd up stuff?

>> ^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

^ Perhaps it doesn't meet the second prong of the test because you can't "punish" somebody who hasn't done something wrong. Ummm.... yeah.

Not sure what else you would call a bill to strip funding from a specific organization, other than punishment. Perhaps "discrimination"?

And yeah, what the hell did ACORN do to deserve this treatment, aside from provide easy voter registration to those who may not have yet registered?

^ 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.

It took me a while to figure out they were talking about ACORN. Here's my take on the ACORN thing. I have no idea what everyone is complaining about. Usually people just refer to it as "the ACORN controversy" without giving any clue as to what they're complaining about. So far, this is all that I'm aware of:

1. ACORN paid their employees to register voters. Some people defrauded ACORN and turned it fake voter registration cards.
2. Republicans dressed up in funny outfits and played the part of a hooker and a pimp and received tax advice from ACORN. They employees were fired.
3. Republicans dressed up in funny outfits and got one ACORN employee to tell them a fake story about killing her husband (who is still alive).
4. ACORN is going to be Obama's citizen army or something?

The only thing that I think deserves any consideration at all is that fake pimp that got tax advice from ACORN. A fake pimp getting tax advice from ACORN doesn't seem to warrant all of this hysteria about ACORN. If anyone can explain it to me, please do so.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA
-6664.aspx
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2008/Journalists%20topline.pdf
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1269

The first link is about a study that counts references to liberal vs conservative policy groups and think tanks in news stories between '95 and '05. It counts the NAACP as a liberal policy group. I don't think reporting on the NAACP indicates a liberal bias. The study removes context from all these references, so it really proves nothing. Fox News mentions ACORN every 7 seconds: does that mean they have a liberal slant?

The second link says nothing about bias. People can have a personal political opinion while working in an objective manner, such as judges.

The third link is a results grid for a large survey of journalists, and again none of those results show bias. I don't think a survey could even provide direct evidence of a bias.

The last link actually says that the majority of journalists are moderates--not that their political view would have proved bias anyway.

Maybe you don't understand what bias is, or what the complaints about Fox News are.

He's on the money on that one. They don't think it's the senates job to change a contact of a company that works for the government (and is basically legally allowing its workers to rape people,) but at the same time every last one of them (and a few democrats to boot,) want to shut down Acorn because some folks secretly got a handful of Acorn workers to help a pimp and his prostitute?

Where I live we call these people hypocrites of the first order.

Well I take it back. Near as I can tell from the information provided and what I looked up on my own, it boils down to the usual partisan moronic dance. You would think an anti-rape amendment would at least be able to break that but nope. Of course when it comes to ACORN, well naturally that a company rife with corruption and should be denied any and all government funds. Love how these politicians can flip around faster than a quarter off a stereotypical street toughs thumb.

I'm sure the similarity to the ACORN video is purely coincidental.

Ha Ha Ha

He doesn't say he knows what they are thinking; all he has to do, as he says, is observe their signs and speech.

Re: definitions. I am saying that you and he have different definitions of "right wing", etc. If your definitions do line up, then the professor is not painting many conservatives with a broad brush, only the extremists. If he is only talking about the extremists, what's your beef?

However, the 912 protesters are tolerating the racists if the racists have a conspicuous presence and noone calls them out. This crowd didn't have a problem identifying and chasing out people they don't tolerate: http://www.videosift.com/video/Teabagger-Chases-Black-People-out-of-912-Rally. As this video shows, alleged acorn people are anathema; apparently skinheads and neoconfederates are A-OK. I'd like to see them chase out the guy with the Obama as an african witch doctor sign, or the primate-in-chief sign, or the pickaninny sign. Why did those folks get to stay?

Your video, Maddow: The Truth About the Lies About Acorn, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is all abit out of context; but i think it is reasonable for right wing supporters to protest against ACORN, given what a small section of them reportedly did around the time of electon. yeah its abit unrealistic to assume anwhere close to the majority ACORN members are "Frauds", since it as a whole represents a good cause, but generalizing isnt illegal or immoral, its just slightly ignorant.

How ever, NetRunner, at 2:12 the woman in the grey and red striped sweater does somewhat forcefully use her flag to try to stop the older man from walking forward, points it at his chest and then proceeds immediately to confront, push and appears to swing the flage towards the face of the woman with the old man.

thats just stupid and you cant do that. as irritating as the man shout was, he wasnt in the wrong, and I think the woman in the sweater should have been escorted away. people who act like that in those circumstances are opening up the situation for all types of wrongness. it could have gotten out of hand.