what happened to antitrust?
Comments
-
-
To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
Now THAT'S a criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The '90's were a fun time in Law School. I actually was taking Evidence class during the OJ Simpson trial. -
Cool story bro. Must have been the only 50 year old in law school.d2d said:To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
Now THAT'S a criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The '90's were a fun time in Law School. I actually was taking Evidence class during the OJ Simpson trial. -
Was writing a comprehensible paragraph any kind of requirement in the law school you attended?d2d said:To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
-
I blame the supreme court for giving corporations too much latitude with regards to "free speech" during campaigns. As the article mentions, there isn't a lot of political will to take on these companies when we aren't in the middle of a financial crisis.Fire_Marshall_Bill said: -
FREE PUB!?d2d said:To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
Now THAT'S a criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The '90's were a fun time in Law School. I actually was taking Evidence class during the OJ Simpson trial. -
RR; DR
-
Citizens Divided was a jokeOZONE said:
I blame the supreme court for giving corporations too much latitude with regards to "free speech" during campaigns. As the article mentions, there isn't a lot of political will to take on these companies when we aren't in the middle of a financial crisis.Fire_Marshall_Bill said: -
The 90's were a fun time too when Van Halen played at my birthday party. while D2d was in law school
-
Citizen Dick >>> Citizen Divided
-
Damoan, You're back fer a poundins
-
puppylove_sugarsteel said:Damoan, You're back fer a poundins
-
Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president. -
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah. -
Probably due to the climate created by the supreme court, which the right wing has controlled for the last 30 years.HFNY said:The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
If the Dems can keep the WH, we might be able to shift the balance of power in the supreme court, finally.
-
It's not semantically correct either. Did you read the link or just the headline? Besides, does the house not have any impact? Or we just saying that the 1/2 of congress has all the power?dnc said:
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah. -
I respect Reich.
The dude is a consistent unabashed liberal ... and makes no excuses for it. I appreciate that in a man, and a woman. -
Yes.2001400ex said:
It's not semantically correct either. Did you read the link or just the headline? Besides, does the house not have any impact? Or we just saying that the 1/2 of congress has all the power?dnc said:
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah.
Actually I saw you arguing over the stupidest thing possible and felt compelled to poont it out.
Stick with your arguments about not controlling the house, that's actually worthwhile. Yelling "they are inaugurated on odd years so it couldn't change hands in 2006!" even though they're elected in even years and that's obviously what he meant is a waste of time and distracts from your worthwhile point.
Don't be d2d. -
Nothing wrong with adding a little salt to be a dick.dnc said:
Yes.2001400ex said:
It's not semantically correct either. Did you read the link or just the headline? Besides, does the house not have any impact? Or we just saying that the 1/2 of congress has all the power?dnc said:
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah.
Actually I saw you arguing over the stupidest thing possible and felt compelled to poont it out.
Stick with your arguments about not controlling the house, that's actually worthwhile. Yelling "they are inaugurated on odd years so it couldn't change hands in 2006!" even though they're elected in even years and that's obviously what he meant is a waste of time and distracts from your worthwhile point.
Don't be d2d. -
All the small banks in my area were apparently too small to succeed, there's no more of them.
Emergency room visit at your local hospital = price of a new car. It's amazing how health care companies can amazingly "negotiate" this cost down to around $2K or less with the hospital.
-
40 and no I wasn't2001400ex said:
Cool story bro. Must have been the only 50 year old in law school.d2d said:To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
Now THAT'S a criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The '90's were a fun time in Law School. I actually was taking Evidence class during the OJ Simpson trial. -
Nobody can be d2d but d2d.
-
Honda admits to Gargle. Prefers Obama's dick with salt.2001400ex said:
Nothing wrong with adding a little salt to be a dick.dnc said:
Yes.2001400ex said:
It's not semantically correct either. Did you read the link or just the headline? Besides, does the house not have any impact? Or we just saying that the 1/2 of congress has all the power?dnc said:
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah.
Actually I saw you arguing over the stupidest thing possible and felt compelled to poont it out.
Stick with your arguments about not controlling the house, that's actually worthwhile. Yelling "they are inaugurated on odd years so it couldn't change hands in 2006!" even though they're elected in even years and that's obviously what he meant is a waste of time and distracts from your worthwhile point.
Don't be d2d. -
Nice triple post, brahd2d said:
Honda admits to Gargle. Prefers Obama's dick with salt.2001400ex said:
Nothing wrong with adding a little salt to be a dick.dnc said:
Yes.2001400ex said:
It's not semantically correct either. Did you read the link or just the headline? Besides, does the house not have any impact? Or we just saying that the 1/2 of congress has all the power?dnc said:
Semantics is important.2001400ex said:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_CongressesHFNY said:Reich makes some good points but as usual, he falls over himself to blame people who aren't politically like him. The Democrats have controlled the White House since Jan of 2009 and controlled the Senate from 2006 to 2014 so how come they didn't break up any of the cartels he mentioned?
As for Citizen's United, the Justices couldn't permit some speech (via political dollars) but not others. Are Public Sector Unions "people"? How about private sector unions? How about the American Bar Association?
Ultimately, it's important for the Justices to be as consistent / even-handed as possible and in general, it's better to err on the side of allowing (if you will) more "speech" than less as it can be a slippery slope as to what becomes restricted due to what the trendy political cause of the day is.
So many things wrong. First.... They are inaugurated into congress on odd years, so.... 2006? Then they did not have control of both houses of congress. You can't do a whole lot with control of the senate without control of the house. When the speaker of the house says it's their goal to make Obama a one term president.
Everyone here knew he meant they won control in 2006 and assumed it in January 2007. This is how the Mericun world discusses polytics and shit. Changing his statement to "controlled the senate from 2007 to 2015" to be semantically correct does nothing to fundamentally change his poont.
Killer link though brah.
Actually I saw you arguing over the stupidest thing possible and felt compelled to poont it out.
Stick with your arguments about not controlling the house, that's actually worthwhile. Yelling "they are inaugurated on odd years so it couldn't change hands in 2006!" even though they're elected in even years and that's obviously what he meant is a waste of time and distracts from your worthwhile point.
Don't be d2d. -
OJ trial was 1995. US involvement in the Vietnam war was 1965 to 1973 or so. Let's say your first tour was in 1970. You were 15. That's right, America drafted 15 year olds, I remember that.d2d said:
40 and no I wasn't2001400ex said:
Cool story bro. Must have been the only 50 year old in law school.d2d said:To be really serious about antitrust, first you have to President (Clinton) and got to Bill Gates' Office and ask him to empty the MSFT CPAC into the DNC. Gates told him that MSFT didn't have a CPAC. Clinton said, "What? But Apple does."
Now THAT'S a criminal violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The '90's were a fun time in Law School. I actually was taking Evidence class during the OJ Simpson trial. -
His brain is rotting from the Agent Orange, give the old guy a break
-
d2d wasn't in Vietnam.
HTH -
Well, then he's one dumb motherfuckerPurpleJ said:d2d wasn't in Vietnam.
HTH -
Even Helen can see how wet the water is.
