General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

70. Isn't

Reply to Cali_Democrat (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 04:01 AM

Jan 2012

"I think many would disagree. "

...that trying to silence him? An attack?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

78 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback) [View all] ProSense Dec 2011 OP

wtf??? FrenchieCat Dec 2011 #1

I'm running low on free speech BootinUp Dec 2011 #6

Well, if you are going to restrict the rights of corps. Then you are saying that Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #18

You don't have to agree with everything someone says to agree with them in general slay Dec 2011 #2

Say that to those of us who are bashed for supporting the President. n/t vaberella Dec 2011 #54

I read that recently and went "Yikes!" Spazito Dec 2011 #3

+ AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #10

Yeah, I think that that's a "holy shit" statement, right there. TheWraith Dec 2011 #67

No. a) Spending isn't speech. I can't buy pot on free speech grounds. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #4

So unions, Planned Parenthood, NOW and the ACLU (all incorporated) Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #21

Not banned, regulated. lumberjack_jeff Dec 2011 #63

GG for the Supreme Court! BootinUp Dec 2011 #5

We are entitled to the best speech money will buy! killbotfactory Dec 2011 #7

Well, union money buys ads. And unions are incorprated. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #22

I would rather they spend their resources unionizing killbotfactory Dec 2011 #24

What about the ACLU, NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club and a host of other Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #26

Are you really arguing that it's either Citizens United or no advocacy at all? killbotfactory Dec 2011 #29

Actually, that was precisely the issue at hand and that is why the ACLU Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #30

Did you read the brief submitted by the ACLU? Spazito Dec 2011 #40

Yes. I have read it and their subsequent response. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #45

Could you provide me with a link to their response on the decision.... Spazito Dec 2011 #49

I was forced to seriously think about it a2liberal Dec 2011 #8

How can anything that gives more power to those with the most money BootinUp Dec 2011 #9

Together unions represent the largest coffers of any organizations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #13

See my reply to spazito (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #16

The thing is.... Spazito Dec 2011 #11

I'd like to see them try to outspend the unions, to be honest. joshcryer Dec 2011 #14

Oh, there is no doubt they can and will outspend the unions... Spazito Dec 2011 #19

I don't see how, they make better progress in lobbying. joshcryer Dec 2011 #23

It is not the lobbying rules that were changed, it was much greater than that... Spazito Dec 2011 #25

I know. I'm saying that political sway is not made by electing candidates. joshcryer Dec 2011 #27

The REAL money is spent on the Congressional candidates... Spazito Dec 2011 #31

I don't think I have a chance at convincing you otherwise. joshcryer Dec 2011 #34

I did go to the links you provided, I hope you also went to the one I provided... Spazito Dec 2011 #37

Except unions and nearly every other advocacy group is incorprated. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #28

Leaving the status quo, shut down neither.... Spazito Dec 2011 #33

And when you shut down Citizens United you also shut down Planned Parenthood. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #36

Again, the status quo shut down no one... Spazito Dec 2011 #39

The status quo was restricted speech for advocacy. The decision handed unions, Planned Parenthood Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #42

The status quo didn't bar them, it just limited them from unduly.... Spazito Dec 2011 #46

Yeah you're right a2liberal Dec 2011 #15

I thought your response was very thoughtful... Spazito Dec 2011 #17

Thanks! (n/t) a2liberal Dec 2011 #53

Very well said, Spazito. And thanks for the link! nt tpsbmam Jan 2012 #77

Why don't you use your own mind and think for yourself? vaberella Dec 2011 #55

I never said I was forced to support it a2liberal Dec 2011 #57

Oh I respect people's opinion and value some more than others. vaberella Jan 2012 #68

I still think you misunderstood my post (n/t) a2liberal Jan 2012 #76

I actually do agree with the ruling and with Greenwald's assessment here. joshcryer Dec 2011 #12

Maybe he was wrong on this one quinnox Dec 2011 #20

He got the first paragraph right. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #32

I really do not see where he claims money = speech. Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #35

This ... LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #41

My next door neighbor who is on SSI has access to a lot less money Luminous Animal Dec 2011 #43

I think equating money with speech was long-established precedent cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #38

I know it is long-established. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #44

I LOVE Mic Check! Spazito Dec 2011 #47

You ProSense Dec 2011 #48

You do criticize on point, very often. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #52

Fascinating! ProSense Dec 2011 #61

The support by Greenwald, the ACLU, Eliot Spitzer, and others was not unconditional. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2011 #50

Is Greenwald up for the 'two minutes of hate' today? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #51

A few days now. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #78

Hilarious. Union Scribe Dec 2011 #56

DU needs a Glen Greenwald Group (GGG) JoePhilly Dec 2011 #58

It is readily apparent that Greenwald has no legal training. His arguments are based Romulox Dec 2011 #59

Excellent point. ProSense Dec 2011 #64

To OP: Have you ever said, "I agree with Greenwald on X or Y article"? Weisbergkevin Dec 2011 #60

I suspect ProSense Dec 2011 #62

K&R Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #65

Kick! n/t ProSense Dec 2011 #66

I think many would disagree. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #69

Isn't ProSense Jan 2012 #70

... Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #74

Happy New Year! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #75

Kick. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #71

So ProSense Jan 2012 #72

Nope! Not conflicted anymore! I'm bright and shiny! Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #73