Will the gentleman yield? - No.

That seems to sum up Grayson's attitude quite nicely.

a Grayson-Franken ticket in 2012 (or 2016 depending on how things go) is something I would vote for, no question.

I like this guy, damn good. Probably one of extremely few who actually gives a shit about the constitution and the rights of the citizenry over corporations.

That was awesome!

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by EndAll.

Did I hear a motion to strike coming in from one of the chairmen?

Or am I mistaken?

I hope I am mistaken.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

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.

WP, Grayson is a freshman Representative, so it's not like he's been sitting on his hands for years up until now.

Why do they keep asking Grayson to yield? Are they basically asking him to stop pressing the question and forfeit his time?

^ They want to ask him a question about his own question, but he has to give up his own speaking time to let them ask it. It's their way of stalling him until he runs out of time and his question accomplishes nothing.

OMG the smart man asked me mean questions! The constitution must seem like such a pain in the ass to those folks.

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.

I like how WP calls people names when he doesn't agree with them. 'Mr. Doofus sure is a dingus.' That's very mature of you Señor Poopyhead.

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: ...

Winstonfield_Pennypacker's point is that since congress has been violating law for decades that it should just continue to do so?

Accusing Mr. Grayson of being there the entire time is also bizarre considering that he was only elected ten months ago.

Try again.

It's a simple question. Would you eat the moon if it were made out of ribs? It's not rocket science, just say "yes" and we'll move on.

So, he spends all of his time trying to establish that a Bill of Attainder is bad, but absolutely no time proving that the legislation actually falls under the category of being a Bill of Attainder? Honestly, it just seems very immature -- he didn't "school" the Georgia Representative in the Constitution... He answered both questions on what constituted a Bill of Attainder and what the Constitution said about them. He's just playing politics.

^ 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.

^ 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?

>> ^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

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?

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.

>> ^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.

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?

Good example. See - what Mr. Doofus decides is (or isn't) a BOA changes, as it does for any politician. They are moving agendas, not taking stands for the Constitution. If Mr. Doofus was consistent in his position on treating 'retribution legislature' as a BOA then I'd be OK with it. He isn't. So I'm not.

(Attack on the democrat party)

So what? I attacked the Republican party in the Bush years for passing all kinds of crap. When a political party does something STUPID, you attack them. You know - because they deserve to be called out for doing stupid things. Democrats & Republicans both have been curbstomping the Constitution a long time, and they deserve far more castigation than I'm dishing out.

(but it IS a Bill of Attainder)

Because Mr. Doofus says so? A real Bill of Attainder has a very specific legal definition, which the Georgia guy says this bill does not meet. Mr. Doofus is arguing that it violates the 'spirit' of being a BoA. Georgia guy says it follows the LETTER of the law. This is an argument of semantics - and if Mr. Doofus wants to start calling out ALL legislation that punishes ANY organization as a BoA then he is opening up a pretty big can. But - of course - as a Democrat he only wants to apply that standard to entities that he politically favors.

Take away your blatant lies

Without examples, your puffery (like your arguments) are invalid.

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

Glenn Greewald wrote a great article on this topic that really digs into this, including Supreme Court decisions.

Re: the Franken amendment, it's completely nonspecific. The KBR case was certainly the catalyst, but the law is aimed at the behavior, not the individual.

With the push to defund ACORN, the reverse is true.

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.


Not even close -- according to Cummings v. Missouri (the controlling decision) a bill of attainder is defined as, "...a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

So some things need to be established here:

- A trial is not needed to cut funding for a federally funded program run by a private entity, the federal government simply needs to follow existing procedures (usually legislation) to discontinue the funding.

- ACORN does not have a right or claim to these federal dollars by any other means. It's not as if you or I could walk into Congress and say, "I'm starting a public service to do 'X', I demand federal dollars to fund it."

- The government isn't taking away life, liberty or property. ACORN maintains all of its existing assets, they're simply not being given any further taxpayer dollars. There is no entitlement there if Congress decides to cut funding, that is purely their decision.

Would the gentleman yield?

FUCK NO!

- A trial is not needed to cut funding for a federally funded program run by a private entity

Precisely. ACORN & Mr. Doofus' attempts to paint this as a BoA are utterly specious - as is all the liberal reasoning in the thread above agreeing with such foolishness.