... with regards to how long the articles you write to achieve this they write shorter articles and other stuff that seems to be so easily converted. that can make sure that he is not the way your articles easy on the bones with a dial up connection. m...

Even if they were performance based, the performance formula was agreed to in advance. Most likely (based on personal experience with an AIG competitor) the formula is some variant of "Base Salary x (Objective Measure factor(s) + Subjective Measure factor) = Total Bonus", where the each factor is limited to a certain fraction of the total multiplier; none are less than 0, and none go above some arbitrary number. As a result, even if we give an individual a 0 for subjective performance, if he hits his objective performance numbers, he's getting a bonus. In fact, if there are three objective measures and he only hits one of them, he's getting some level of bonus.

He's also probably already been fired.

Who's blaming Democrats?

You must be skipping over Bit's remarks.

No. Technically, bills of attainder are criminal laws only.

It's hard to argue that a bill the picks out a specific group of people and bumps their taxes up to 91% isn't imposing a criminal penalty.

Yes, sam, you can dictate the terms of compensation going forward; you can't rescind benefits already earned.

That last about benefits being earned is interesting. I'd like to know if the contracts are performance-based. If they are, then I don't see any reason they need to be honored given the sequel.

Wouldn't this be struck down under the constitutional ban against bills of attainder?

No. Technically, bills of attainder are criminal laws only.

Damn Democrats.

Who's blaming Democrats? It's true that Congress is dominated by that party but there's bipartisan outrage (faux or otherwise) about the bonuses.

Not really, but you just did.

Hey bit, I have not hear you arguing against wife beating. Its pretty obvious to everyone that you are, in fact, are in favor of wife beating.

Wow, its really hard to employ bitsian logic... well, not really,

(bitsy is also an anti-dentite)

Damn Democrats.

Oh, wait.,,

n other words, you can't support your own statement. Different day, same BS.

Not really, but you just did.
You do know that, right?

Of which party did a member suggest recently that the AIG execs commit suicide?

Boy you've got the some selective memory.

Funny you should mention that. I was in the process of writing an article on that point, taking GRassley to task for being a useful tool.

Thta point aside, perhaps you weren't aware of this, but it turns out the Democrats in congress knew all along what AIG's planning and reasoning was... for at least a year prior to the point which they were issued.

So, first off, it seems I labeled this faux outrage correctly as such, and secondly, the democrats get caught in a lie yet again. I say again, this whole shooting match was about narrative maintainence.

Can YOU point to any that are arguing with it?

In other words, you can't support your own statement. Different day, same BS.

Of which party did a member suggest recently that the AIG execs commit suicide?

The roaring silence in response to this very valid point is noted.

Which democrats have said that they support a, "narrative of the private busienss (sic) being an evil that must be controlled by the power ogf (sic) government," or is that another of those pesky straw men? And I don't suppose you have any support for, "WH becoming party city on the taxpayer's (sic) dime," either? Enjoy your windmills.

Can YOU point to any that are arguing with it?

And the typos are simple enough; Goes with the territory of typing on a cell phone.