Don’t much like his books, either, I mean, he’s no Dean Koontz, that’s for sure.
Ok, I watched the video. Right-wingers have no taste in their politicking. Their disruptions of the democratic process sometimes seem a little… fascistic. But I don’t understand the lesbian bit. Maddow seems passably lesbo enough. But you’re either turned on by lesbos; are into laundry, knitting and auto repair but pass as straight; or you dress up like a girl and then go cruising for chicks? 
Not sure I follow here, Moto. Are you saying that this isn’t an effort to punish and/or injure ACORN? When the guys themselves are bragging about fucking over ACORN? Are you employing some hyper-technical Brickersonian parsing, some exquisitely precise definition?
I mean, technically a baseball bat is sporting equipment, but when somebody starts smacking you around with one, its a weapon.
You know, oddly enough, the last person to express any interest in my fantasies wanted $2.99 a minute to listen (even though it seems to me she would be getting all of the advantage…) Is it usual for super-models to have such gruff, gravelly voices?
Luci, all I can gather is umbrage. I like having you at my back.
(explanation) I’m sober and well-medicated. Annoyance is all I can expect from me.
For reasons of morale, its probably best if you’re in front of me, that way you can’t see me cringe.
Good work if you can get it. I guess there’s no Being John Malkovich angle to the conspiracy then?
No - Bricker might parse things sometimes but some topics need parsing. You use “punish and/or injure” above as if the terms were interchangeable, which legally they don’t seem to be. Injury can be committed by anyone, but punishment refers only to a sentence imposed by a court.
Therefore, these topics are covered by entirely separate sections of law - injury is generally considered synonymous with tort law in its myriad forms. Incidentally there probably isn’t a tort case here - the monies in question were granted through a government contract so contract law would instead apply. Punishment is defined as a sentence imposed by a court - again, this doesn’t apply here either as nobody has been tried.
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but even this much is pretty clear to me. And waving your hands about definitions won’t change that.
So, is this just one of those remarkable coincidences, then? Were they planning for some time to introduce this marvelous piece of legislation, and the fact of its timing is mere circumstance? Even if Pubbie lawmakers a crowing about bringing down ACORN (see Rep. King, cited above)? Its not about ACORN at all, simply that the Republican Party has been seized with a fervent desire to de-fund fraudulent enterprises, and let the chips fall where they may?
Is it my wording that discomfits you? Perhaps if I exchange “punish” and “injure” for “fuck over” and “stick it to”, you will be content?
I’m not discomfited in the least - just a bit surprised that someone that uses precise language to joke around will insist on using general terms when discussing a legal matter, where these terms have a set meaning.
I have any number of character flaws, and ought to be grateful to you for pointing them out. Another time, perhaps? After you’ve answered the question? And by “answer the question” I mean answer the question, not “post a semantic distraction to evade the actual point”.
Is the intent of this legislation to hinder, defund, or otherwise weaken ACORN? Go ahead, shout it out, we all know, and you do too.
It is to sever government ties with the organization at this time, which IMHO is neither a punishment nor an injury, merely a contractural dispute.
Yes, Moto, I’m quite aware of the formality. I am talking about the intent of that formality. Which is as plain as the nose on your face. You leave me to wonder if you attended college on a dodge-ball scholarship.
True. OTOH, “Bill of Attainder” has a specific legal definition and it does not encompass a “punishment” such as a bill to defund a former recipient of government funding or contracts. This is nasty and overreactive, but it ain’t unconstitutional.
I’ll offer you a bet, then: if the law is passed, and challenged, it will be upheld as constitutional. $200. What do you say?
Don’t much care about that, the whole “attainder” thing was never my issue. Mine is mostly about a political operative like Rove being empowered to sic US Attorneys on his political enemies. I very much doubt there is a legal nicety that would make that kosher.
What a childish response. Homey don’t play dat.