Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

    Gem of a video.

    [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKz5ZHM8kFM&feature=player_embedded#[/media]

    "Would the gentleman yield"
    "No"

    4:10 on is classic.

  • #2
    Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

    Originally posted by AMosely View Post
    4:10 on is classic.
    It is classic.....

    And I will not yield the rest of this thread.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

      It's not your thread to yield, and no I will not yield the thread. Ha!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

        Interesting that this is considered a Bill of Attainder. It denies eligibility for a Federal contract, and Congress has often used the Power of the Purse to set policy in areas where it has no Constitutional authority to create criminal laws.
        Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

        snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

        Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

          Much as I hate to quote Huffington Post,

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_294949.html

          Seems interesting. Unintended consequences are always a lot of fun.

          Holy pants

          http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3571/text

          That could be applied to..., what, everyone? I mean, how often do the Democratic and Republican parties commit campaign fraud of one kind or another?

          Plus, if I'm reading this right, if one of your employees tries to commit tax fraud for their own purposes, your entire organization can lose federal funding?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

            There must be some way to just deny funding to everybody, and thereby save tons of money to pay off the Federal debt. Not that paying debt off is at all important.
            Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

            snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

            Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

              A little update on this story:

              House Ban on Acorn Grants Is Ruled Unconstitutional

              And from the Right:
              Congressmen Call on Justice Department to Appeal ACORN Ruling

              The Faux News article specifically has the phrase 'activist judge' without citing any piece of the ruling, or any facts at all for that matter. It always gives me pause when any political party or organization claims they are in defense of the Constitution (Bills of Attainder is a Constitutional amendment) yet feel as though they can pick and choose the precise clauses and interpretation therein. This is a pretty clear-cut case, not only is Congress not permitted to cut off funding, ACORN technically did nothing wrong. Questionable ethics, perhaps, but nothing illegal.
              Last edited by Mosely; 12-16-2009, 11:55 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                Perhaps questionable ethics? Three separate employees in three separate states, IIRC, used quite similar language to advise citizens on how to commit tax fraud, set up a prostitution under a false pretense, and condoned the possibility of child abuse! http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...udacity-of-hos

                Anyway, how can I trust this internal review? ACORN hired a dude who supports them! That review's a joke. What's this policy crap? Where's the review of their books? Of the organizations they sponsor? http://www.bostonherald.com/business...s#CommentsArea

                And this "unconstitutional punishment" crap. It is unconstitutional for the government to decide who they want to fund with federal dollars "without a hearing"? Huh? :P

                http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...VhNmY0M2E5NjY=
                http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JiYTliNmVkOWM=
                Last edited by Gill; 12-16-2009, 01:34 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                  Originally posted by Gill View Post
                  Perhaps questionable ethics?

                  Anyway, how can I trust an internal review of ACORN when it was headed by a dude who supports ACORN?
                  By internal do you mean external? From the 'did nothing wrong' link.

                  An outside review of the beleaguered community group ACORN has found “serious management challenges,” but no pattern of illegal activity.

                  The review, commissioned by ACORN in the wake of a hidden video expose that showed a few of its employees appearing to offer tips on how to break the law, also largely absolved the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’s current management, laying much of the blame on founder Wade Rathke for lax oversight and dangerously rapid growth.

                  Scott Harshbarger, the former Massachusetts attorney who led the inquiry for the Proskauer Rose law firm, found that ACORN is not subject to “basic, appropriate standards of governance and accountability” and suggested specific measures to help restore public confidence.
                  Where did you get the idea that he supported ACORN? Do all inquiries require a neutral party or an opposed party to be objective?
                  |TG-6th|Snooggums

                  Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                    Originally posted by Gill
                    Three separate employees in three separate states, IIRC, used quite similar language to advise citizens on how to commit tax fraud, set up a prostitution under a false pretense, and condoned the possibility of child abuse!
                    Right, of an organization - not a federal agency - that has over 1200 offices around the country and 400,000 members whose job it is to help poor people cut as many corners as they can. I'm not defending them per-se, but you can't take a 3-city sample (and some of the bigger ones at that, with severe urban poverty) and hold that up as proof of systemic fraud. Non-forced prostitution is an ethics question. I don't have anything to say about the 'Salvadorian girls' comment, but that only occured in one of the three offices.

                    Regardless, my point isn't one in defense of ACORN, it's in defense of the legal limits of Constitutional authority and how how politically warped the entire debate has become. Some Republicans even criticized the White House for having acorn-shaped cookies at a holiday party. I mean, in Jon Stewart's words, 'you gotta be [email protected]%ing kidding me.'

                    All this while millions are dying from lack of health care and we're sending troops overseas by the thousands.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                      Originally posted by snooggums View Post
                      Where did you get the idea that he supported ACORN? Do all inquiries require a neutral party or an opposed party to be objective?
                      Ah, yes, I meant external review.

                      I cannot find anything on Google to support my view that Harshbarger supports ACORN and was based upon his community activism and political leanings. So... take that comment as you will.

                      However, the review has to be a whitewash.

                      http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1182/story/820305.html

                      http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/78769597.html

                      It should be independant and separate from ACORN to maintain credibility.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                        Originally posted by AMosely View Post
                        Right, of an organization - not a federal agency - that has over 1200 offices around the country and 400,000 members whose job it is to help poor people cut as many corners as they can. I'm not defending them per-se, but you can't take a 3-city sample (and some of the bigger ones at that, with severe urban poverty) and hold that up as proof of systemic fraud. Non-forced prostitution is an ethics question. I don't have anything to say about the 'Salvadorian girls' comment, but that only occured in one of the three offices.

                        Regardless, my point isn't one in defense of ACORN, it's in defense of the legal limits of Constitutional authority and how how politically warped the entire debate has become. Some Republicans even criticized the White House for having acorn-shaped cookies at a holiday party. I mean, in Jon Stewart's words, 'you gotta be [email protected]%ing kidding me.'

                        All this while millions are dying from lack of health care and we're sending troops overseas by the thousands.
                        Ah, okay. I see your point now.

                        However, in a few reviews/thoughts/opinions of the New York judge's ruling, it was brought up that 163 was specifically worded to avoid Bill-of-Attainer conflicts.

                        "By its terms, Section 163 might seem to bar the disbursement to ACORN of any funds appropriated under the continuing-appropriations law or under previous laws, including disbursements under pre-existing contracts. But the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has opined, in advice that governs the executive branch, that Section 163 “should not be read as directing or authorizing [the federal government*] to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to ACORN or its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.” Notably, OLC’s reading of Section 163 was expressly driven by the desire to avoid the bill-of-attainder concerns that it believed might otherwise arise."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                          Originally posted by Gill View Post
                          Ah, yes, I meant external review.

                          I cannot find anything on Google to support my view that Harshbarger supports ACORN and was based upon his community activism and political leanings. So... take that comment as you will.

                          However, the review has to be a whitewash.

                          http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1182/story/820305.html

                          http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/78769597.html

                          It should be independant and separate from ACORN to maintain credibility.
                          Wow, two extremely biased articles that have no supporting evidence that there was any whitewashing, the only reason given for him to do so was Harshbarger being a Democrat. You even parroted their 'whitewashing' rhetoric and noted that he has no ties to ACORN to support your statement that he supports them and is therefore biased.

                          Do you understand how being aware of your own unfounded bias makes your confidence in your opinion illogical?
                          |TG-6th|Snooggums

                          Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                            Given your political leanings, would you wholly trust a "sponsored" investigation of a right wing organization if it, too, delved into its own political party and - surprise! - the entity it hires proclaims everything was basically managerial problems? :P

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Bills of Attainder, Acorn, Republicans

                              I don't have 'political leanings', I have opinions on specific issues and am independent of any political party.

                              Your question is irrelevant because you haven't shown that there is any kind of bias just because the Hambergler is a member of the Democratic party.

                              If the Hamburgler was a Republican and said there was illegal activity but there was no apparent bias I would trust that conclusion. That should have been your 'opposite party question'.
                              |TG-6th|Snooggums

                              Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X