|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
stellad
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:21 PM Original message |
The simplest way to neutralize the SCOTUS ruling: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kenny blankenship
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:22 PM Response to Original message |
1. Try everything and anything, I say, even stop gap measures you know will be struck down |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FreakinDJ
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:38 PM Response to Reply #1 |
13. Agree 1000% |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
adamuu
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:24 PM Response to Original message |
2. It is a matter of national security . n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SharonAnn
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:25 PM Response to Original message |
3. Thus, if a corporation commits a felony, its shareholders should be punished. Right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pocoloco
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:26 PM Response to Original message |
4. Great idea!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoNothing
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:27 PM Response to Original message |
5. Foreigners have no First Amendment rights? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
customerserviceguy
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:42 PM Response to Reply #5 |
15. Good point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eridani
![]() |
Sun Jan-24-10 07:17 AM Response to Reply #5 |
21. Not with respect to campaign donations they don't n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eShirl
![]() |
Sun Jan-24-10 07:26 AM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Maybe they could restrict it to "eligible voters only" then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jwirr
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:27 PM Response to Original message |
6. No multinational corporations should be the law. Maybe also no |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MrsCorleone
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 04:02 PM Response to Reply #6 |
18. One of Grayson's bills addresses gov contracts & political spending. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kablooie
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:28 PM Response to Original message |
7. The SCOTUS way of seeing it is the opposite. If there is one American owner it's American. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
benld74
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:29 PM Response to Original message |
8. Sound good but I liked the one I heard yesterday,,, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alfredo
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:29 PM Response to Original message |
9. Business owners own their businesses, I own a gun, should it be granted personhood? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kablooie
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:31 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Absolutely yes! I own a lawn chair and it is a full person in the eyes of the law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
alfredo
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:34 PM Response to Reply #10 |
11. Now how do we incorporate a gun or a lawn chair? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FreakinDJ
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:39 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. Can I Marry your Gun .......Dad |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kelly1mm
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:37 PM Response to Original message |
12. Good thoughts but the premise is wrong - foreigners do have 1st amendment |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JPZenger
![]() |
Sun Jan-24-10 07:45 AM Response to Reply #12 |
24. I've never heard of challenge to foreign ban on contributions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
femrap
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 01:56 PM Response to Original message |
16. So if a corporation listed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kablooie
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 02:21 PM Response to Original message |
17. A foreign/American owned corporation would be viewed as a person with dual citizenship. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 04:19 PM Response to Original message |
19. Deleted message |
KharmaTrain
![]() |
Sat Jan-23-10 04:22 PM Response to Original message |
20. Full Disclosure... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
JPZenger
![]() |
Sun Jan-24-10 07:43 AM Response to Original message |
23. Yes, plus a corporation should have the same max. spending limit as an individual |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Fri Jun 14th 2024, 01:55 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC