what happened to antitrust?
Comments
-
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.
