what happened to antitrust?

Fire_Marshall_Bill

http://robertreich.org/post/119767465905

PurpleJ

d2d

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.

2001400ex

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.

Cool story bro. Must have been the only 50 year old in law school.

OZONE

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."

Was writing a comprehensible paragraph any kind of requirement in the law school you attended?

OZONE

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

http://robertreich.org/post/119767465905

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.

dnc

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.

FREE PUB!?

sarktastic

RR; DR

Fire_Marshall_Bill

OZONE said:

Fire_Marshall_Bill said:

http://robertreich.org/post/119767465905

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.

Citizens Divided was a joke

puppylove_sugarsteel

The 90's were a fun time too when Van Halen played at my birthday party. while D2d was in law school

GrundleStiltzkin

Citizen Dick >>> Citizen Divided

puppylove_sugarsteel

Damoan, You're back fer a poundins

GrundleStiltzkin

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

Damoan, You're back fer a poundins

HFNY

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.

2001400ex

HFNY 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

dnc

2001400ex said:

HFNY 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

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.

OZONE

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?

Probably due to the climate created by the supreme court, which the right wing has controlled for the last 30 years.

If the Dems can keep the WH, we might be able to shift the balance of power in the supreme court, finally.

2001400ex

dnc said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

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.

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?

topdawgnc

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.

dnc

2001400ex said:

dnc said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

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.

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?

Yes.

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.

2001400ex

dnc said:

2001400ex said:

dnc said:

2001400ex said:

HFNY 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

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.

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?

Yes.

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.