- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obviously, you believe everything that a lame duck president, who desperately wants to get re-elected, tells you. Along with the same DOJ that raided the Gibson guitar company, because if the wood they were using for their finger boards.
Would that even be legal? Probably not, but who cares about the law. Right?
I said the merger doesn't necessarily bother me, I'm just not going to knee-jerk hate on Obama because of who he is. It's logical that they's want to look at it, anybody with 2/3 of a brain should have expected that. It's not over yet. I'm sure there will probably be a backroom deal to settle this.
Apparently not you. There are anti-trust laws, and it's perfectly Constitutional for the Federal Government to regulate interstate trade.
Still waiting for an answer on how less competition is good for the economy. But why let laws, the Constitution and basic economic principles get in the way of a good Obama-hating?
IOW, anyone that disagrees with Obama is a racist. Right?
No surprise there.
Did I say anything about his race? Nope, you were the one who brought it up. I meant because he's a Democrat.
Still waiting to hear how less competition is a good thing in a free market economy....
I said the merger doesn't necessarily bother me, I'm just not going to knee-jerk hate on Obama because of who he is.
free market economy?..... where?
No, but you did say,
and we all know what the means in Libbo-ese.
No, but you did say,
and we all know what the means in Libbo-ese.
Well, you know the one y'all are always crying about Obama ruining. Until he does something to preserve it , then you attack him for that.
who is "y'all"?
People who oppose anti-trust regulation should really read some freakin history books.
adpst's debate tactic?
The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, under which "Bell System" agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business, AT&T Computer Systems. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint.
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.
Conservatives love the market economy and Constitution, yet apparently you couldn't be bothered to understand either. At least not if it gets in your way of hating Obama.
Well, you know the one y'all are always crying about Obama ruining. Until he does something to preserve it , then you attack him for that.
Wait! When did I shout, "racist". Feel free to link us to that post.
Yes by implying that "libbo speak" is one about race, you brought racism into the conversation.
What makes people think that any dominating companies aren't working in tandem together?
Most oligopolies do this: swap CEO's, share trade 'secrets', predetermine prices . . .
Monopoly or not - the dirty work happens regardless of what the gov permits or doesn't permit.
You have no clue what that means. Sad really..
They understand the commerce clause. Which more than I can about you.
Feel free to post a link to prove your point.
Btw the competition argument fails for this example. The parent company of T-Mobile has already said that without the merger it will just close the doors of T-Mobile US.
Then enlighten us! See, when I read in Article I Section 8 that one of the enumerated powers of Congress is "To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes" it means what it says -- Interstate Commerce, meaning commercial traffic across state lines, can be regulated by the Federal Government.
So lets see if I understand this retarded unlimited power liberal argument. The idea is the government can regulate commerce, regulate business, sue business, and take over business whenever they please because they can "regulate" interstate commerce. Wow, and you can't see how that is ****ing retarded? The entire point of the commerce clause was to make sure everything was running smoothly and no one was mad at each other. They were meant to be the middle man in the process when things went bad, not the controlling force of all things commerce. To liberals though they damn well know that means disputes, but No, no, that is way to hard to follow. I mean, where is the power?? Yeah, exactly. So take your stupid ass and move along.
take over business whenever they please because they can "regulate" interstate commerce
So because it's in the Constitution, they should pass a law or sue someone? I thought the Constitution was an old 300 year old piece of paper written by slave owners.Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.
The merger is nationwide (not just in one state), therefore it is "interstate" and subject to the Federal Government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
It's not about prices going up it's about competition. Competition is the lifeblood of a free market economy. It doesn't take a genius to figure that less competition is not good for a market economy.
Conservatives love the market economy and Constitution, yet apparently you couldn't be bothered to understand either. At least not if it gets in your way of hating Obama.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?