General Discussion

jeff47

(26,549 posts)

49. I was inarticulate

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Sun May 5, 2013, 01:43 PM

May 2013

Should've left it at "political donations". I was referring to the SOCUTS's "money = speech" definition.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I Just Came from the Opening Session of Move to Amend's Portland Convergence - This is Important. [View all] dballance May 2013 OP

Instead of... defacto7 May 2013 #1

Interesting Point. I'll Bring it up tomorrow. dballance May 2013 #2

"on their board"? jberryhill May 2013 #21

Again, You're Getting It Wrong. There's no Desire to Lock out Corps Completely. dballance May 2013 #32

Unfortunately, I can read jberryhill May 2013 #36

I didn't get a chance to work this in today. But I haven't forgotten about it. dballance May 2013 #46

This would mean unions would lose their rights also. former9thward May 2013 #3

Unions Don't Have the Rights That Corporations Have. dballance May 2013 #4

Unions spent $141 million last year on the election. former9thward May 2013 #5

Sounds like a very god deal to me dreamnightwind May 2013 #7

Question jberryhill May 2013 #9

You're equating dreamnightwind May 2013 #11

That's only the tip of the iceberg jberryhill May 2013 #13

What changes would you make to the proposed amendment? dreamnightwind May 2013 #14

To accomplish what goal? jberryhill May 2013 #18

To the goal of dreamnightwind May 2013 #22

What anyone thinks is irrelevant jberryhill May 2013 #23

Let me ask a simpler and more pointed question jberryhill May 2013 #16

NO, Not Necessarily. The Amendment Doesn't Do That. dballance May 2013 #34

That's already constitutional jberryhill May 2013 #37

Seems Rather Paltry Compared to the $658 Million Spent By Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Sector dballance May 2013 #52

You are leaving out a big number. former9thward May 2013 #53

I Don't See How Individual Volunteers are Relevant to the Argument. dballance May 2013 #54

K&R cprise May 2013 #6

Down goes US v. New York Times Corp. jberryhill May 2013 #8

I Think Those Two Cases Could Have Ignored "Free Speech" and Been Ruled as Freedom of the Press dballance May 2013 #10

Read the proposed language jberryhill May 2013 #12

One of the Points People Fail to Realize is the Amendment is Just the Beginning dballance May 2013 #29

Your proposal eliminates freedom of the press. jeff47 May 2013 #19

That may be partially true. Laelth May 2013 #40

Doesn't matter if the people do still have rights. They rely on the paper to get the story out. jeff47 May 2013 #42

I see your point. Laelth May 2013 #43

Whoa jberryhill May 2013 #44

I was inarticulate jeff47 May 2013 #49

Actually, the court didn't say that jberryhill May 2013 #50

who funds move to amend? HiPointDem May 2013 #15

Excellent Question. dballance May 2013 #17

while i'm in sympathy with the apparent goals, never underestimate the duplicity of the ruling HiPointDem May 2013 #26

The 14th Amendment is the one you're thinking of. dballance May 2013 #31

Wise, HiPointDem. Quite wise. n/t Laelth May 2013 #41

I hesitate to ask... jberryhill May 2013 #20

ironic, wot? HiPointDem May 2013 #24

I'm in the wrong business jberryhill May 2013 #25

signs of the times point to that as a good career move. assuming you're the charismatic type. HiPointDem May 2013 #27

I don't think it matters jberryhill May 2013 #28

yes, but some kind of charisma or connections is needed to get to that stage of visibility where HiPointDem May 2013 #30

A good website jberryhill May 2013 #35

Here is the funding answer. No Major Corporate Donors. dballance May 2013 #45

Wrong again jberryhill May 2013 #48

K&R! Fire Walk With Me May 2013 #33

Thank you DB Berlum May 2013 #38

I support the goals of MTA. Laelth May 2013 #39

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #47

A Nattering Nabob Finally Got me to Use the Ignore Member Feature dballance May 2013 #51