ACORN: Housing Assistance For Prostitutes

[Drake Tungsten]

Watch the unedited tape when it's made available, then.

[Darius871]

Not so much "heavily edited" as "poorly edited"; there were points where the narrator even specifically referred to something the employee was about to say, but then the audio was muted out right after. D-.

[Dinner]

I thought this was great.

[Darius871]

@ anyone who holds a JD being dumb enough to think declining an appropriation, as opposed to taking property, is tantamount to a bill of attainder, no matter how idiotic and flustered the MD rep's response may have been...

[DinoDoc]

I thought this was great.

I want my 30 seconds back.

[Dinner]

@ anyone who holds a JD being dumb enough to think declining an appropriation, as opposed to taking property, is tantamount to a bill of attainder, no matter how idiotic and flustered the MD rep's response may have been...

Bull. They are specifically targeting one group and want to punish them to prevent them from EVER getting any federal contract or money despite the fact that they have NEVER been convicted of any crime nor has such a thing ever been alledged by a creditable source. That is EXACTLY the definition of a bill of attainder; I.E. extra-judicially singling out one person, a group of persons, or an organization for punishment by the legislature. The constitution EXPLICITLY states that bills of attainder are illegal in all cases. Get your facts straight.

[Dinner]

I want my 30 seconds back.

I suspect the reason is because you have no idea what the man is talking about but I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt and go with you're just being a partisan hack as usual.

[Darius871]

Bull. They are specifically targeting one group and want to punish them to prevent them from EVER getting any federal contract or money despite the fact that they have NEVER been convicted of any crime nor has such a thing ever been alledged by a creditable source. That is EXACTLY the definition of a bill of attainder; I.E. extra-judicially singling out one person, a group of persons, or an organization for punishment by the legislature. The constitution EXPLICITLY states that bills of attainder are illegal in all cases. Get your facts straight.

Jesus christ... I'm really not going to waste ten minutes pulling up all the reasons you're wrong. Suffice it to say that even though your definition of "bill of attainder" is correct, the underlying element of "punishment" (i.e. affirmatively taking life, liberty, property, or vested rights) is the point of contention here, as it is the point of contention in all attainder cases. This may come as a surprise to you, but the judiciary gets the last word over Webster's Dictionary on that issue. I can only recommend that you read cover-to-cover each of the only five cases in 200 years where the SCOTUS overruled anything on an attainder basis (United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946); Pierce v. Carskadon, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 234 (1872); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866); Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (1866)). In particular try the most analogous, U.S. v. Lovett, and come back to me to explain with quotes how its protection of individual federal employees permanently barred from their livelihoods in individual government employment would necessarily be extrapolated to ceasing a voluntary handout to a private organization. This ought to be good.

FFS, even Grayson didn't go so far as to call the defunding an unconstitutional bill of attainder per se; he only suggested that anything remotely resembling a bill of attainder would be "contrary to every principle of sound legislation" and diminish "separation of powers," which was a political argument that the present bill was bad policy, not a legal argument that it was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. I suspect the reason you miss the point is because you have no idea what the man is talking about, but I suppose I could give you the benefit of the doubt and go with you're just being a partisan hack as usual.

[DinoDoc]

I suspect the reason is because ...

the clip you posted offended my sense of decency because of the stupidity it contained.

[DaShi]

Meanwhile companies that rape their employees have no restrictions on their federal contracts.

[rah]

Does this mean that you think acorn still deserves all the fed dollars it used to receive?

[DaShi]

No. But I do think that.

[Dinner]

Yes, it hasn't done anything wrong and the "case" against it has all been lies and innuendo. Certainly nothing to get a permanent ban from all federal contracts. If a real case exists then bring it to court but, of course, a real case doesn't exist so the legislature singling it out with a ban is nothing more then an unconstitutional bill of attainder rule.

Registering people to vote is vital to a democracy and ACORN has never done anything wrong. This is just Republicans, once again, showing that they hate democracy and want to prevent minorities from voting. The Republicans continue their campaign to prevent minorities from voting for year after year and we're supposed to think their current lies aren't a continuation of decades of racism? Minorities know first hand how racist Republican policies are so Republicans want to make sure as few minorities as possible vote. This is just a continuation of their racist campaign.

[rah]

In all fairness, Republicans only want democrats not to vote and Democrats aren't trying to register Republicans. (Acorn isn't either) So don't try to make it sound racist, it's just partisan.

And yes some Acorn employees have been convicted

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

[Kuciwalker]

It's fascinating how illiteracy seems to be a lefty thing. Zkrib and Oerdin both have it bad...