And, again, I already have shown that. You are expecting quotes tied specifically to the emails and phone calls. I was never arguing anything like that and you know it. You are distorting my argument and moving the goalposts, again.
I didn't post it as proof of the headline. I posted it as an example of that hatred in action. I have already spelled that out numerous times in this thread and you refuse to acknowledge that. More dishonestly and self-delusion.
As far as, "proving anything to you", that is impossible. No amount of reasonable argument in the world can do that because you are not intellectually honest and will resort to what ever dishonest and deceitful rhetoric you need to in order to avoid honest debate and maintain your denial of the truth. You are a dishonest ideologue and a propagandist. There is no convincing you of anything. Your history on this forum proves all this to be true.
Actually, they do futher the debate by keeping it on track and keeping it hoest. You just don't like it because focusing on those dishonest tactics prevents you from distorting and obfuscating here, which you have shown is the only way you know how to argue; manipulate things to not allow for a certain point of view and/or allow for your point of view. If you are trying to manipulate and distort (which you are) you are dragging down the debate.
Focusing of the logic of a debate always furthers a debate because it prevents dishonest and manipulative arguments from being "legitimized" and gaining any purchase in the debate. It keeps the debate more honest; something you have a real problem with, apparently.
You are moving the goalposts because you are assuming an argument I was never making and then when I backed that argument up as you wanted (post #6) you claimed that was not enough and demanded that the proof has to come from the original article I posted. That is moving the goalposts:
Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.
That is not a "minimum requirement". You have yet to show that any "proof" has to come from the original article. All you have provided is assertions that it does, which in and of itself is a logical fallacy:
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
How? They didn't do anything wrong. The left created and signed into law a bill that, through the Chris Dodd Amendment, allowed these bonuses to be paid out. Obama and the legislature knew about these bonuses for months. Then when the bonuses were legally paid, those same politicians were the ones who were the most outraged and acted as if they had no clue and that is was somehow illegal to pay these bonuses.
You truly are a socialist aren't you.
That is nothing but speculation and spin based on Marxist theories; the core assumptions of, and philosophy behind that perspective (Marxist theories) have been shown throughout history to be false, especially here in the USA. There isn't the type of "have/have not" sentiment that "topples financial oligarchies" ala the revolution from capitalism to socialism that Marx talks about in his theories and writings. That is what the hard leftist/ socialist (Obama, Pelosi, etc) are trying to turn this into though; a bloodless, revolutionary transition to the soft socialism of the most leftist parts of Europe. They are trying to radically and dishonestly change this country.
I am not going to take the time to disprove each point of that baseless spin and speculation rooted in Marxism because it will only be another avenue for you to obfuscate through manipulation, distortion and fallacious arguments. Also, I simply don't have the time to get into that debate. But the fact is that most all of that rant is distortion and lies based off of flawed and disproven Marxist thinking.
Raymond Aron pointed out that, unlike Europe, there is no big class struggle in America when he wrote:
...there is no sign of either the traditions of the classes which give European ideas their meaning. Aristocracy, and the aristocratic way of life were ruthlessly eliminated by the War of Independence.
That is why the left uses class warfare to artificially create and amplify the differences between the classes. But you will never admit that to yourself or anyone else, will you. This is a good indicator of why Marxism is flawed; it has to distort and misdirect to make it's point. Focusing on the very top of the scale to judge the income distribution of this country is as absurd as focusing on the very bottom of the scale; it only distorts. The more realistic and statistically significant picture is gleaned from looking at where most Americans are, in the middle class. Like most things, american class structure is a bell curve. You are focusing on the outliers and nothing statistically valid or significant can be gleaned from looking at the outliers, only distortions and deception come from looking out there. Statistics never lie; lairs use statistics.
The only way focusing on the most rich is relevant is if you assume a "zero sum" level of wealth (one of the false assumptions in Marxism that is never really said in the propaganda, but is implied). The view is that the rich get richer by taking from the poor and middle class. That is simply not true. The rich get richer by creating MORE wealth. That trickles down to the lower classes and they get richer as a result. That is why even the poor in this country live better then the wealthy in many other countries. We actually have poor that are overweight (the clearly get enough to eat), have HDTV's, cars and own homes. The truth is that the poor get richer by taking from the wealthy, ultimately. In a free market that is natural and the wealthy are free to create more wealth. Under a Statist regime, the rich are not allowed and incentive to create wealth, so they suffer and, as a result, everyone else suffers. That is the direction Obama is moving us in and that socialist perspective is what you are supporting and pushing here.
What Obama is arguing (and what you are mindlessly supporting) is that because these "robber baron's" have been shown to be corrupt, we should give the government the power to fight their corruption. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater!! A few corrupt people in a system that, in the long run punishes that corruption on its own does not justify radical and wreckless change to what is basically a "soft tyranny", as Tocqueville would call it. Again, as C.S. Lewis wrote:
...a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. IT would be better to live under robber barons then under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own goodwill torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
The constitution doesn't necessitate any of that. There is no limit on the number of people or the need for a specific, "guilty" group named. Here is what the courts have said:
Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a trial, are 'bills of attainder' prohibited under this clause.
-United States v. Lovett (1946)
A bill of attainder, is 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.
-Cummings v. Missouri (1867)
-United States v. Lovett (1946)
A bill of attainder, is 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.
-Cummings v. Missouri (1867)
Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the Constitution says:
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The only realistic argument that this bill will not be ruled as a bill of attainder is due to the fact that the SCOTUS tends to give judicial deference to tax laws, in general. In fact, Richard Epstein spells out that argument in this article. Basically, Courts are too deferential to Congress, particularly in the context of taxes and economic regulation. It is a matter of judicial prudence, not a matter of weather or not the law is truly unconstitutional.However, this blog quotes Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University who says that there could be some problems with that:
Congress may have more of a problem with the Bill of Attainder provision than they are admitting. This is because the separation of powers principle that might normally argue for judicial deference may run in the other direction here.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in US. v. Brown (1965) that the basic reason for a Bill of Attainder clause was to prevent “trial by legislature.” This is because “the legislative branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness of, and levying appropriate punishment upon specific persons. “
Congress can always levy a tax that seems punitive to those who have to shell out the money. Legislative motive is therefore crucial to both limiting and to giving teeth to Bill of Attainder analysis. Does anyone think that it would be difficult to prove in court that the overwhelming reason that this bill was passed was to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those AIG employees who received the bonuses? It is money that is already in their pockets. In this sense then, confiscation of property is being used as a punishment. When Congress does this, it is a Bill of Attainder.
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in US. v. Brown (1965) that the basic reason for a Bill of Attainder clause was to prevent “trial by legislature.” This is because “the legislative branch is not so well suited as politically independent judges and juries to the task of ruling upon the blameworthiness of, and levying appropriate punishment upon specific persons. “
Congress can always levy a tax that seems punitive to those who have to shell out the money. Legislative motive is therefore crucial to both limiting and to giving teeth to Bill of Attainder analysis. Does anyone think that it would be difficult to prove in court that the overwhelming reason that this bill was passed was to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of those AIG employees who received the bonuses? It is money that is already in their pockets. In this sense then, confiscation of property is being used as a punishment. When Congress does this, it is a Bill of Attainder.
Ex post facto has only been applied in criminal cases. the SCOTUS has not overruled a tax law due to ex post facto, but that doesn't mean that ex post facto doesn't apply. Taxes are an issue given to the legislature and the court has usually seen fit to give them a free hand in that; once again, a matter of judicial deference. However, as ex post facto is written in the Constitution, it applies to any law, not just criminal law.
Just because the SCOTUS doesn't rule on a law, or doesn't rule it unconstitutional, does not mean that the law is ultimately constitutional. It only means that the SCOTUS won't rule it unconstitutional. Those are two different things.
