• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Sues AT&T to stop its Merger with T-Mobile.

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.

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.

Would that even be legal? Probably not, but who cares about the law. Right?

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?
 
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.
 
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....
 
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....

No, but you did say,

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.

and we all know what the means in Libbo-ese.
 
free market economy?..... where?

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.
 
No, but you did say,



and we all know what the means in Libbo-ese.


Instead of reading --let's make assumptions!! Yay!

I don't speak "Libbo-ese" I speak English (and some French and a little Russian to boot). You speak "Con-ese" that's for sure. If Obama does it, it's evil!
 
No, but you did say,


and we all know what the means in Libbo-ese.

adpst's debate tactic?

polls_shout_racist_1410_964949_poll_xlarge.jpeg
 
who is "y'all"?

People who complain endlessly about "free market economics" and "Obama's a socialist" without having a clue about what either means.

Sorry if that's not you.
 
People who oppose anti-trust regulation should really read some freakin history books.

Ah yes - because of course anyone who opposes them are ignorant of history. Naturally - if only we'd read a bit of this and that - we'd come to a new thought process all together.

Hmm - even with our 'anti trust' regulations in place - we still were royally ****ed as a nation when various companies and banks folded.

I guess there's just no umbrella large enough.
 
Not the first time this has happened to AT&T. The last time I know of was in 1974 and was during Nixon's tenure:

Bell System Divestiture
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.

------------

Also, the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit began during a GOP controlled Congress and finished while George W. Bush was president.

But you conservatives don't know anything about that, right? You guys would forget your penis if it wasn't attached.
 
Last edited:
Interstate commerce is regulated by the Federal Government. It's right in the Constitution. I mean, it says it.

You have no clue what that means. Sad really..

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.

They understand the commerce clause. Which more than I can about you.
 
Last edited:
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.

Until he does something to perserve it. LOL
 
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?

Nothing; they do it a lot, and when they do so it is known as collusion or forming a cartel, something that is also against US antitrust law.

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.

Yes, they do it all the time, and it's criminal, and the gov't often relies on whistleblowers to expose them when these things come to light.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You have no clue what that means. Sad really..



They understand the commerce clause. Which more than I can about you.

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.

Please, enlighten us with your Conservative "wisdom" about what it "really means" as opposed to what it says.

While you're at it, tell us why monopolies are good for a free market. Every economist I've heard says they're not. It's pretty basic. I'm still waiting to be enlightened on this. So far I've been called stupid, and been falsely accused of playing the race card. Yet nobody can seem to answer that one little question. So go for it. You're smarter than me, tell me what I'm missing from Article 1 Section 8, and basic economic principles.
 
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.

They wont just close the doors of T Mobile, that would be a massive loss for DT, they could sell it at a lower price to a different company, or spin it off as a private company distributing shares to DT shareholder. Closing it down would be idiotic for DT. DT has said they do not want to run T Mobile anymore and will not put more money into it.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Who is making the case that the federal government can

take over business whenever they please because they can "regulate" interstate commerce

as you allege in your interpretation of what you think liberals believe?

And by the way, what exactly do YOU believe about this clause in the Constitution?
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom