What if we all put our efforts -- and anger and frustration -- behind overturning Citizens United?

[OneGrassRoot]

(Edit to add: There are dire issues -- poverty and homelessness -- that desperately need attention. I focused on this particular issue because I feel this is at the heart of everything; we can't make legislative headway about these dire issues until the corporate influence is removed, or at least loosened. If someone has a targeted, focused campaign that we can undertake regarding poverty, I support that wholeheartedly and apologize if anyone feels this OP is taking away from any other crucial issues.)


Surely this is something EVERYONE can agree on (even reasonable people who don't consider themselves democrats/liberals/progressives): Getting a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling.

This group is devoted to this effort:


http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/


Here are actions we can take now:


http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/get-involved


There is so much wrong with our system that it's overwhelming, but what if we start with a concerted effort to start affecting change regarding the corporate control of EVERYTHING?

If we all focus efforts on one thing -- just try it -- instead of being so fragmented, maybe we can accomplish something toward genuine change?

:shrug:

Why not start with this? I'm up for a good campaign to topple this ruling, how about you?

:hi:

:patriot:

[Drale]

1. Thats never going to happen

while the court is full of bushtards.

[Dappleganger]

3. The OP doesn't understand the word "can't"...

and neither do many of us, either. ;)

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. Quite!

Keep this kicked :hug:

[blondeatlast]

72. Word. nt

[Luminous Animal]

4. The organization is advocating a legislative solution.

[Ken Burch]

86. It might take using the initiative process.

And using it again and again and again.

[McCamy Taylor]

44. Yes, we can. Obama appoints a special prosecutor to investigate foreign money.

Special prosecutor discovers the identity of all the donors (warrantless wiretaps will make this extra easy). Any donor that has ever given money to a "terrorist" group gets prosecuted---along with the SuperPac that took their money.

Also, special prosecutor checks to see which candidates coordinated their efforts with the SuperPacs (not legal under Citizens United). Those candidates get prosecuted under election laws.

Citizens United Vs. FEC goes up in flames.

[Divine Discontent]

88. good post!

[Lorien]

55. With your attitude it won't. We need to rid the court of two corrupt Koch brothers water boys

then install two new judges. Legally they should not be there.

[sabrina 1]

68. There is no such thing as 'never going to happen'.

If that were the case, Black Americans would still be sitting in the back of buses and Obama would never have been president and women would not be voting, just as an example.

Not all the courts are full of bastards. So strategy is important.

I completely agree with the OP that we should focus on issues such as the hi-jacking of our electoral system and go after them relentlessly.

We are all over the place, while the other side chooses its battles and puts resources behind their efforts to get what they want.

[bobbolink]

2. No, thank you. If fighting against poverty isn't on the list, count me out.

I WILL vote my own best interests, unlike Kansas!

Here's a revolutionary thought... instead of continuing with one-issue patterns, how about forming actual COALITIONS?

You know.... like activists USED to do?

[OneGrassRoot]

6. That's not working out so well, so I offered this as an alternative...

One which I personally feel is the biggest current contributor to most of this country's ills, leading to more and more poverty and all manner of suffering.

Until the corporate stranglehold is removed (or at least loosened) from politicians, no legislation is ever going to adequately address issues of poverty, homelessness, education, etc.

[bobbolink]

7. Yeah, that rationale is always used to keep those on the lowest levels DOWN and repressed.

Nope, not buying it.

If you can't see poverty as an important issue, don't ask me for support for YOURS. And you are going to find a lot of groups feeling exactly the same way, so don't be surprised when it happens.

I am offended that you know how I am suffering, and can not only ignore it, but ask me to ignore my OWN sufferng and the suffering of others to support your ONE issue. That would be truly nutz for me and others to do that.

As far as it not working.... it hasn't been tried in a very long time. Since the 80s, people have gone their own way and ignored others. THAT is what isn't working. Some of us are now working to change that. Too bad you dismiss it.

[OneGrassRoot]

8. Once again, I'm sorry I've offended you. n/t

[bobbolink]

14. Actually, I don't think it matters.

You have made yourself absolutely clear with this.... either I give up on what *I* need, and fight other battles that leave me out, or I am thrown under the bus.

Same old same old.

[OneGrassRoot]

18. Wow. n/t

[bobbolink]

21. Yes, that is exactly what I think when I hear people telling me to put my "selfish" needs aside and

work for *them*.

WOW.

Like I am chopped liver.

WOW, indeed.

[bigmonkey]

57. I think the point is that this battle doesn't leave you out.

You're in it whether you want to help or not. It seems that you are bordering on extorting support for the issue you identify as your own, or you refuse to help. That is, it seems you are willing to cut your own nose off to spite your face. You could say "yes, and ..." , but you insist on "not unless ...", and claim it's because you believe in solidarity.

Your position is unintelligible to me.

[bobbolink]

74. I wouldn't expect you to understand....after all, "ALL OUR ENERGY" is soooo unclear.

As usual, all you have is denigration, and lacking any kind of compassion.

Then you will complain if poor folk don't vote. :crazy:

[Fire Walk With Me]

13. People would appreciate an equivalent thread listing places where they can fight poverty.

Links to foodbank donations, shelter donations, etc. I'd keep it kicked, if you'd PM to me its URL.

[bobbolink]

17. I have posted many threads. Charity isn't it. The RW *wants* us to rely on charity.

Are you ready to work for something other than what the RW wants?

[Fire Walk With Me]

23. You are absolutely correct, the RW wants to abolish charity and any support for the weak

and then mocks us and says "get a job". I've been apoplectic about this during and since Reagan. Most recently, I watched Ahnold slash budgets in California for women's shelters, and a recent generalized cut of 60% for overall mental health care. I'm disabled and watch their plans for social security as a sign and portent. I'm in a sober living with people from homeless shelters, who are one support check from again living on the street. This is a very meaningful issue to me, and my intense disgust against the rw "social plan/final solution" only grows.

We have to cut them off in the courts but in the meantime, we =do= have to be our brothers' keeper and donate, donate, donate. All the while fighting without pause and without doubt about the right outcome.

=Thank You= for your great concern for those who cannot help themselves. Any action on their behalf can never be underestimated.

[bobbolink]

25. That is not at all what I said. I will repeat it slowly.....

"progressives" don't work actively to get REAL action on poverty.

The RW wants to abolish MORE programs which are already skimpy.

"Progressives" go along with that reducing government assistance.

The RW wants all "help" to be Charity.

"Progressives" can only think, as you did, in terms of charity.

So, I ask you... what is the difference?

Are you now ready to do something different from what the RW wants?

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. Sorry, I'm not engaging those issues. I say that you, that we, must start threads,

must take actions, which neither side of the political dynamic will take, and shame them into so doing through contrast and the sheer power of Doing The Right Thing.

Creating something ourselves, even be it a single donation, begins to bring things back to where they must be. It's not playing into rw hands; it's slapping them into shame through truly meaningful action.

Enough people motivated along such lines, creates positive change. This is something different from what the rw wants. This obsoletes the rw entirely, if done well and done fully.

:)

[bobbolink]

34. I fully understand you don't want to "engage" those issues. I got it.

What you DON"T get is that charity isn't "slapping" anyone or anything except poor people.

RWers do charity... they do a LOT of charity. They like it that way because it continues to keep poor people down.

So, what you are advocating is more of the same RW action.

Good going.

[Fire Walk With Me]

41. Sorry you feel you fully understand me, and pardon if you feel that I fully understand you...

...but I'm for money into jobs programs and counseling, into rehab for the addicted, into housing for those who otherwise are on the street...base-level stuff which empowers and, if fully utilized, can bring people into some level of personal power and ability. I know previously addicted, homeless people who are now clean and working on drug counseling/guidance degrees, who fully plan upon spending their time and energy to help others in the same positions (or, "lack of position").

I fully support such things. :shrug:

I do challenge you, however. If you feel the need to dump upon this thread, this attempt to create a little positive motion and energy, why not start your own thread telling us the problem(s) as you know it, and the solutions as you know them.

:hi:

[bobbolink]

42. Wow.....equating homeless people with addicted people. I really wish you would be willing to

actually LEARN the realities.

Again, what you are saying there is no different from what the RW says.

And it is a DIRECT slam to me, and something that causes ALL homeless people MORE suffering.

You say you are for more housing, but right away you link it with addiction.

Please, avail yourself of the facts before you keep repeating the RW talking points, OK?

For what it's worth to you, *I* am "clean", OK?

:nuke:

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Okay, you are seriously misinterpreting my words and my intent and I won't engage with that.

Peace to you and your best hopes for positive change.

Edit: I'm in south central los angeles and crack cocaine is everywhere you look, as are its effects. Not all homeless are addicts, of course, I'm not stating an absolute and don't know why you insist on taking absolutes, it's not mine to know.

[bobbolink]

48. You stated it that way, but rather than being honest and retracting your words, you blame it on me.

Good try, but it doesn't fly.

Also, what you said was an insult to me and all other "Clean" homeless people, and it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that.

But, you refuse to "engage". Why am I not surprised.

[defendandprotect]

71. You're saying people are homeless because they're "drug addicts" .... ??? Wow!!!

[bobbolink]

83. Yes, isn't the ignorance amazing?! Sapphire Blue posted many times how this kind of stereotypical

ignorance is hurting people, but so mamy refuse to listen.

Then they wonder why some of us are "angry".

:nuke"

[defendandprotect]

85. The history of this depression couldn't be more clearly -- again -- about

average Americans getting ripped off -- losing jobs, losing health care benefits --

finding COBRA and insurance costs too high to continue --

finding whole communities being devastated -- like Iron Belt/Auto Industry --

Market crashes over and again -- deregulation of capitalism --

Liar loans and foreclosures which governors tried to act to stop and W broke up their

activites and let the loans go on --

We can all very easily be "Katrina'd" these days -- or "Enroned" -- on and on as the

possibilities keep increasing!

[bobbolink]

89. Turning it all into "This Depression" totally IGNORES those of us who have been poor

WAAAAY before "This Depression".

I don't know how in the world I can get this across.

By repeating "This Depression" over and over and over, it is causing those of us already suffering deeper suffering, and often death.

[defendandprotect]

91. Perhaps you don't know that Obama called it a "Depression" .... about two months back or so...

it was posted on Yahoo -- and that would was quickly scrubbed and replaced

with "recession."

Many in Congress have also stumbled as if they have wanted to say "depression" --

but many also ended up call it "The Great Recession."

Certainly whatever poverty existed BEFORE this, it wasn't helped by this most

recent economic calamity --

nor will it be helped by Repugs being in control of the our safety nets -- unemployment

insurance -- Social Security - Medicare.

Many poor are still dependent upon those programs --



.

[bobbolink]

92. I am trying to get everyone to realize that the poverty isn't only about the middle class.

I guess I need to give up-... ,I just can't get it across.

[defendandprotect]

93. Poverty is deeply embedded .....

Reagan and Bush years have never been corrected --


And given the failure to reinstate NEW DEAL regulations and rules on capitalism,

we'll probably be seeing more of its scams and crashes.

[Fire Walk With Me]

27. Also, every public charity drive shows the rw as what they are, in contrast.

The antithesis of charity. People are starting to wake up about this, and upset people get out and create change.

[bobbolink]

36. You are 180 degress off. It is very often the RW who RUN the charities!

It is the RW who volunteer at shelters and "souplines".

YOU are the one who is promoting more RW action.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I'd join in because I want to see the corporations go down, but we do absolutely need to

see poverty addressed and I don't see why we can't manage both.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. I agree....

I don't see why we can't manage MANY issues, quite frankly.

As I just wrote to bobbolink, to me this one issue lies at the heart of so many of our current ills, and we can't address anything legislatively until this control is removed.

Me posting this doesn't mean I don't support other efforts, especially those target poverty and homelessness.

:shrug:

[bobbolink]

26. Actually, that's just what you said. "Put all our energy..." etc.

That was clearly what you were saying, and you said coalitions don't work.

[OneGrassRoot]

28. You're right. But it wasn't my intention to take away from any other efforts...

and I've edited the OP accordingly.

[bobbolink]

31. My reply is the same.... always telling poor people to "wait" is nothing different.

Maybe you haven't noticed..... all those people who said the same thing about stopping the wars... that poverty would then get the funds.... HAHAHAHA!!! Really, we are just not that stupid.

Your OP still has the headline "ALL our energy", and that is what is meant.

Poor people will always be shoved aside in these efforts, and unless you realize that INCLUDING poor people is the only way, you will continue the same divides.

You know what? It should be very obvious, that there is a win/win to including poor people... by working FOR our needs, and putting poor people first and including the other issues, you would also work (at the same time) to educate poor people about the causes behind the poverty.

That that simple thought isn't obvious is just amazing to me.

By attacking it this way, you keep the divisions going, and keep poor people suffering in isolation.

What is not to understand?

[flamingdem]

39. Too many are discouraging this, I don't want to know why

It's NUMBER ONE for winning 2012

[bobbolink]

84. I repeat, you said "ALL OUR ENERGIES."

I really resent you sayig that you have been so reasonable to me, when what you ARE doing is telling people to focus on only ONE issue, leaving out poverty and homelessness, then claim that you are including it.

You have been here long enough to see how hard it is to get poverty to be included at all, then you post something that leaves it out altogether, THEN claim that you meant something else and that I am at fault.

That is NOT acceptable.

[defendandprotect]

75. Agree ... what about that old "SHAME" factor that the Repugs were always talking about ....

Pelosi got into this a few weeks ago by trying to brand Repugs as

"having poo on their shoe" because they were taking corporate money!!!

Think it turns out the money went this time around 7 to 1 to Repugs!!

But, unfortunately, again, Democrats fail with this dumb argument because they've

been guilty of taking corporate money. They are COMPLICIT!!

And, let's face it, rather a dumb slogan.


We should work for a Constitutional remedy for this -- but with a right wing Supreme Court in

place? Is this really the time?

If we could move Congress, they might be able to find a way to dent it up a bit -- limit it --

ever overturn it!

BUT PLEASE TELL ME WHY ANY PARTY TAKING CORPORATE MONEY ISN'T SHAMEFUL TO BEGIN WITH????

AND ANY PARTY NOT CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT OUR IMPOVERISHED CITIZENS AND THE

HOMELESS ISN'T CONSIDERED SHAMELESS????

WAR, AS WELL -- we're citizens being hiked around by a warmongering, warmaking MIC -- !!!

1 million and more Muslims dead in a faked need for war -- and we can go days here at DU

without even hearing it mentioned!!!

Love the Greens -- how did you do in the Boston Governor's race -- ???

Good candidate, I hear!

[OneGrassRoot]

76. It IS shameful, and this isn't about Democrats or Republicans...

because the point is that multinational corporations control both parties to a large enough degree that, legislatively, it's too hard to get anything done, especially core issues like fighting poverty.

That's why targeting this issue -- and perhaps starting by working to overturn Citizens United in spite of how difficult it seems -- feels like it is a place to start, as we simultaneously work to educate and alleviate poverty and homelessness.

[defendandprotect]

78. It is a starting place ...

I've signed petitions for them -- will give them a contribution.

However, don't think everyone can work on same issue -- it's important also for

public to be informed OVERALL. And to understand the interconnections between

all of these issues -- especially from the highest perspective.

There's still a lot of learning going on here and on the internet for most of us!

We have to pay attention to everything and reach out where we can across the board

to help.

[McCamy Taylor]

45. There is no issue if we do not reform elections.

[Lorien]

56. Bingo. But Mr. "poverty is the ONLY issue-ignore all the rest" will never stop hijacking threads

and he'll never, ever get the Big Picture. Maybe he thinks a totally bought and paid for government of, by, and for the Wealthy will give a rat's ass about his homelessness?

[InvisibleTouch]

94. Some people have built an identity around self-righteousness.

No matter what anyone says, no matter how anyone tries to help or understand, it will never, ever be good enough, because then the individual would have no excuse for their continued venom. The goal is an eternal sense of victimhood with simultaneous sense of superiority, *not* actual progress on the issue they supposedly care about. Thus the eternal twisting of words and reading-into of intentions, the constant admonishment that no one has any iota of compassion (ironic, coming from someone who has among the very least I've seen here), the absolute arrogant certainty that no one else has ever had it as tough in life, and so on and so forth. There is no point in trying to appease this particular poster. Trying to do so, only impedes the progress of those who truly have good intentions.

[bobbolink]

67. That's a fine rational for dismissing the most vulnerable people in the country.

Democrats USED to pride themselves on being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, and advocate for many different groups.

Now, that seems to be lost, and the meme is, "Do what *we* want, and put your own needs aside for US. We'll get back to you when we decide you are important."

Then you wonder why you lose so badly, and sink back into calling others "stupid", etc.

Wake up. Your humanity is calling.

[defendandprotect]

79. Free TV ads are essential -- $4 billion raised this election/$3 billion to TV ads....

all money that went to strengthening our monopoly corporate-press --

and weakening democracy!

[w4rma]

58. Don't be dumb. Wall Street has place certain roadblocks in the path of fighting poverty.

And to remove those roadblocks IS to fight poverty.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. That's a great place to focus. I've signed the petition.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[flamingdem]

40. +1

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. I'll sign the petition because I really do hate the way elections are bought, but

I'm also with bobbolink in that we need to address poverty. (Yes, cleaning up elections is a great way to get a handle on a lot of our problems, but poverty is such a desperate situation that it can't wait until we crush the corporate control.)

[OneGrassRoot]

16. I'm most drawn toward non-legislative means to bring attention to poverty...

specifically because it is critical and we have no time for legislative machinations.

And it's why I support Bobbolink's and others' efforts to educate others about these issues and how to work toward solving them.

I just didn't have one specific website, with a task list, to refer people to regarding that issue.

I'll support anything you or Bobbolink or anyone else wants to focus on in that regard.

:hi:

[GreenPartyVoter]

22. Thanks! I don't have one either and am currently looking for something, or will see about

starting something here if I can.

I'll keep you posted, because we need all the help we can get.

[flamingdem]

15. YOU ARE 100% CORRECT! This is where we need to focus, the repukes used Indian + hedge fund $

Don't get distracted people, this is what tipped the elections for the repukes

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. Yep. The amount of money spent on these elections could have been used for something constructive

like education, health care, homeless resources, etc.

Disgusting, when you consider that the republicans evidently care far more about being in power than about spending that sort of money where it will do some good.

[flamingdem]

38. The point is that they BOUGHT THE ELECTIONS, worse than diebold fraud

because it works... thanks Citizens United!

[spanone]

19. neither party wants to eliminate free flowing cash...ain't gonna happen

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. The parties are =ours=.

And about "ain't gonna happen"...man could never fly, women could never vote, no one could ever get to the Moon, and an African-American could never be elected President...even if it isn't perfect, we're =getting there=.

[spanone]

63. just like term limits....congress will not police itself...ain't gonna happen

[defendandprotect]

81. Agree .... but we have to find some way to have leverage over them ....

Right now, we have none and the corporations have it all --

One catch here may be that all this new loose corporate money is going to

go mainly to Repugs -- Dems got only $1 for ever $7 given this cycle.

That may begin to crack this?

Pelosi came out talking about shaming Repugs -- "Poo on their shoe!" --

Certainly didn't catch on as an idea -- but may have seeds/roots?

[Lorien]

65. Make a simple argument: if you can't run a campain on a tight budget then you can't run

a town or Country on one either. Campaign spending limits should be promoted as the best test for effectiveness and fiscal responsibility.

[defendandprotect]

80. Maybe not entirely true any longer .... Dems got ONLY $1 of every $7 given this election period ....

Last time I heard Pelosi out pre-election she was trying to SHAME Repugs

for taking corporate money --

She isn't much on using propaganda -- she called it "Poo on their shoe" -- !!

Catchy, eh?

But the problem with it is that Democrats are COMPLICIT in this as Nader has

been making clear for decades and as he did again the other day.

As the tide shifts -- we might see more resistance by Democrats?

Maybe we could get them to toss the DLC out of the party?

Wouldn't that be great!!

[dkofos]

30. Start by impeaching Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.

[WillowTree]

54. Holding your breath, are you?

[librechik]

32. It will take a constitutional amendment. Still in?

not in my lifetime.

[OneGrassRoot]

33. Yeah, I'm willing to try. :) n/t

[librechik]

35. good luck to you young folks with that kind of energy

and for god's sake don't look at the history of the ERA.

[OneGrassRoot]

37. I'm 47.

I don't feel so young. ;)

:hi:

[McCamy Taylor]

46. All it takes is a special prosecutor. This is Nixon's "suitcases of cash" waiting to be uncovered.

[OneGrassRoot]

47. Thanks, McCamy. :) n/t

[librechik]

49. So. We need to wait for a president willing to appoint a special prosecutor?

With all the evidence we had, and all the moral necessity, we couldn't get Clinton to appoint a prosecutor for Iran Contra, and we couldn't get Obama to appoint one for the lies and crimes of Iraq. Aside from prosecutors for Democrat blowjobs, how do you propose we get one?

[Waiting For Everyman]

50. K&R Thanks, OGR!

[OneGrassRoot]

51. kick n/t

[laughingliberal]

52. No doubt we will make no progress on any issue as long as corporations can buy the government.

It is the issue behind all the other issues.

K&R

[bvar22]

53. You mean like we did for the Public Option?

I no longer believe that "they" are listening to us.

[eallen]

59. It's based on a falsehood, and can't state a solution

When the 1st amendment was framed, there were newspapers. Many printed by corporations. And book publishers. Many of which were corporations. I cannot imagine what the authors of that website think "the press" meant, if not including those. And I find it very telling that they propose to amend the Constitution, but do not provide proposed wording of the amendment they desire! If you think it is easy to draw a legal line between Huffingtonpost and Exxon, both of which are corporations, need to sit down and figure out what that line is and how they would express it.

There are a lot of ideas worth pushing regarding electoral reform. Here are some:

http://www.fairvote.org/

And Citizens United does not stand in the way of many kinds of restrictions that can be imposed on corporations, for example, forbidding them from contributing to campaigns or PACs. We definitely can write laws that limit corporate money. What we can't do is tell corporations to shut up. And if you think that is bad, look at how many liberal outlets are incorporated.

:hippie:

[OneGrassRoot]

60. I support fairvote.org's electoral reform initiative...

Absolutely!

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as the people who created the Free Speech site, or many who have chimed in here. I do believe fighting the Citizens United ruling, somehow, is important, however.

I appreciate your input!

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

61. I'd be willing to choke off the good ones to nip this shit in the bud.

They are only getting started and I suspect will become harder and harder to discern from the background as the big money moves to issue advocacy rather than counting on candidates so much.

Soon our TV shows and movies will have messaging against regulation and promote trickle down. Before long the subtle messages about climate change being false and the value of Wall Street will be subsurface and matters will deteriorate from there.

That said charters can be much more strictly drawn up to give some the ability to advocate and other could be restricted. This current path is not workable. Better they all be made to "shut up" than the citizen having no voice and the wealthy dominate those with more meager resources.

[OneGrassRoot]

62. gawd. that's so true....

Soon our TV shows and movies will have messaging against regulation and promote trickle down. Before long the subtle messages about climate change being false and the value of Wall Street will be subsurface and matters will deteriorate from there.

We've already seen the effects media conglomerates controlling "news" and the lack of truth in advertising have had on the landscape.

What you describe -- which is perfectly logical and, most likely, inevitable if not nipped in the bud -- is horrifying.

:scared:

[Lorien]

64. Looking through the reponses here it's easy to see why so little improves for us

"Can't "won't" "dreaming" ...geez. The Right Wing doesn't stop trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but we're waving the white flag before we even TRY anything! Campaign finance reform and reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would completely transform American politics, culture and OUR LIVES for the better in ways that nothing else will, yet you all don't even want to make the effort? Pathetic.

[OneGrassRoot]

66. I have to agree....

Don't get me wrong, I know we all have every reason to be pissed off, frustrated, belligerent, etc. And I fully respect that many people are truly too tired; they have no more fight left in them.

But there are enough of us who DO have energy...and want to DO SOMETHING instead of talking about it.

We must CHOOSE to do so!

If we don't at least TRY -- at least try to discuss the possibilities -- it's guaranteed that nothing will get better. It seemed to me that targeting what many of us feel is at the heart what's wrong with our system these days was a good focus, so I tried to find who was leading that charge and posted something we could do. And if we do it en masse, perhaps we can see results.

I personally can't live with doing nothing.

If you don't agree or don't resonate, don't participate. It's simple.

I just saw this quote, and it applies here:

When we give it our all, we can live with ourselves -- regardless of the results ~ William Wordsworth

(As an aside, here is another kickass quote that I want to share:

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." ~ William E. Gladstone, 1866

:hi:

[Fire Walk With Me]

69. Yeah. The republicans want something and go out and bang their heads against it until they get it,

every time. It's a very simple secret to success. That, and discouraging others from even trying to do the same thing.

Totally selfish, childish, greedy...and it can be stopped by exactly the same amount of attention and effort placed upon positive things.

:hi:

[OneGrassRoot]

77. Their lockstep efforts are effective. We know that.

Many of us are concerned (terrified, even) about many issues, poverty and homelessness being the most dire of them. We need to have some unity of effort in a big way somewhere along the line, and drowning in anger and frustration won't get us anywhere.

I agree, FWWM. :hi:

[JustAnotherGen]

82. ITA

Both on this concept (original post) and on bobbolink's asking us to not throw those who live in poverty under the bus. Citizen's U is designed to give those in power - even MORE power. It enables them to turn the US into a third world country. That means increasing the poverty level. And this needs to be a part of the message: The poor will be even poorer, the so-called *middle classes* will cease to exist.

I think we need a few points of light that we stay focused on and on message:
Citizens U needs to go now.
People living in America are entitled to be shelter, food, and medical security.
All people are equal - no more bullshit about some people being more equal than others. This includes women, gays, lesbians, transgender, the poor, the middle class, all minorities, and all religions.

[defendandprotect]

70. Agree --

terrific website and Thom Hartmann has also been backing these actions ---

will take a Constitutional Amendment unless Congress can do something about it --

[SoCalDem]

73. There is no appeal fro SCOTUS "decisions"..

We are

[ElsewheresDaughter]

87. It would be easier to just demand a law to have Public Funded Elections

[jillan]

90. Done! Until we get CU overturned the gop will remain in control & we will be doomed.

Nothing will get accomplished, the rich will get richer while they take us back to a pre-FDR era.

[nashville_brook]

95. a movement to Amend the constitution can have very positive effects even if it doesn't succeed

in getting the amendment itself passed. it's a journey toward to fixing it, and it has to start somewhere. great post!

[Raksha]

96. I can get behind this effort.

I've been thinking along the same lines for a long time. Also, this last election brought home the full horror of unlimited corporate spending on smear campaigns. I thought it was bad BEFORE, but when corporations can spend unlimited amounts of cash targeting and very often defeating good public servants like Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson, democracy doesn't stand a chance.

This is what HAS to happen before anything else can happen.