• 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.

haymarket said:
Who is making the case that the federal government can



as you allege in your interpretation of what you think liberals believe?
Click to expand...

Tell me what about those bailouts votes of GM and that good part of the company they had there for a bit. You think that falls under the commerce clause? Or maybe it falls under the necessary and proper clause, or maybe its the general welfare clause. Well, what is it?

And by the way, what exactly do YOU believe about this clause in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

That is a bit of a stupid question, don't you think? Maybe to a liberal or a conservative they would consider how they want it to be, but I'm not a liberal or a conservative. If I was going to use what I wanted it to mean it wouldn't do as much as I said it did, so drop this line of argument.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Your interpretation of the Constitution is that is was written so that you can insult people.


How is less competition good? Still waiting for an explanation of why basic economic principles of the free market are wrong in this case. If the government has any role in commerce, it is exactly this -- to prevent monopolies and oligarchies because of how they distort the economy. In other words, how their existence fundamentally changes the competitive dynamic of a market economy. You said "They were meant to be the middle man in the process when things went bad." Monopolies and duopolies are the biggest example of things going bad.

I don't expect you to answer this honestly, because all you've shown you can do here is yell and scream. That's all Cons have been able to do in this whole argument. Not one of them has been able to demonstrate why competition is bad or why the government has no authority. Just yell and scream about "I hate Obama for breathing."

I know it's so hard to understand that people can have nuanced views -- I didn't necessarily agree with all the bailouts and stimuli. I don't support Obama's re-election. But hey, I think the administration may be right here, so obviously I follow them blindly. I mean, that's the only possible explanation, right?
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should have read the OP which I wrote that in response to. The question asked was "How is this even Constitutional?" My response is that it's Constitutional because the Constitution says it is.
 
rocket88 said:
Ah, I see. Your interpretation of the Constitution is that is was written so that you can insult people.
Click to expand...

Like I said to Haymarket this isn't my interpretation.

How is less competition good? Still waiting for an explanation of why basic economic principles of the free market are wrong in this case. If the government has any role in commerce, it is exactly this -- to prevent monopolies and oligarchies because of how they distort the economy. In other words, how their existence fundamentally changes the competitive dynamic of a market economy. You said "They were meant to be the middle man in the process when things went bad." Monopolies and duopolies are the biggest example of things going bad.
Click to expand...

Lets make this real simple so you can follow along. I will now write one word...

Peacemaker.

The purposes isn't to make sure competition stays alive but that commerce stays flowing the way the members of the commerce desire. Now have a wonderful labor day.

I know it's so hard to understand that people can have nuanced views -- I didn't necessarily agree with all the bailouts and stimuli. I don't support Obama's re-election. But hey, I think the administration may be right here, so obviously I follow them blindly. I mean, that's the only possible explanation, right?
Click to expand...

No, you just believe in grade school understandings of things you might want to actually study on your own.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Tell me what about those bailouts votes of GM and that good part of the company they had there for a bit. You think that falls under the commerce clause? Or maybe it falls under the necessary and proper clause, or maybe its the general welfare clause. Well, what is it?



That is a bit of a stupid question, don't you think? Maybe to a liberal or a conservative they would consider how they want it to be, but I'm not a liberal or a conservative. If I was going to use what I wanted it to mean it wouldn't do as much as I said it did, so drop this line of argument.
Click to expand...

Your tactic of trying to evade a direct question by asking more in return only serves to shine a spotlight on the intellectual vapidness of your original argument.

You seem to revel in your Frankenstein monster interpretation of what liberals believe but then you are impotent to provide any actual evidence of this when challenged on it.
 
Henrin said:
The purposes isn't to make sure competition stays alive but that commerce stays flowing the way the members of the commerce desire.
Click to expand...

So competition =/= important?

That's Econ 101, maybe you should educate yourself before expounding on a free market economy.

No, you just believe in grade school understandings of things you might want to actually study on your own.
Click to expand...

Since all you have is insults, we'll just assume that you have nothing to add to the conversation.
 
rocket88 said:
So competition =/= important?

That's Econ 101, maybe you should educate yourself before expounding on a free market economy.
Click to expand...

that isn't important to the meaning of clauses.



Since all you have is insults, we'll just assume that you have nothing to add to the conversation.
Click to expand...

That one actually wasn't an insult.
 
haymarket said:
Your tactic of trying to evade a direct question by asking more in return only serves to shine a spotlight on the intellectual vapidness of your original argument.
Click to expand...

I guess the fact that democrats in office that you probably work for supported it and used the lame brain argument of the commerce clause means nothing.
 
Henrin said:
I guess the fact that democrats in office that you probably work for supported it and used the lame brain argument of the commerce clause means nothing.
Click to expand...

Even though you intentionally did not place a question mark as punctuation on that statement, you did it yet again. It is as if you cannot help it.
 
haymarket said:
Even though you intentionally did not place a question mark as punctuation on that statement, you did it yet again. It is as if you cannot help it.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts honey. Liberals loved the bailout that were in office. Be it a republican liberal or a democrat liberal. They loved it.
 
Henrin said:
Facts are facts honey. Liberals loved the bailout that were in office. Be it a republican liberal or a democrat liberal. They loved it.
Click to expand...

It is pretty obvious that when you get pinned in the corner you attempt to get out through distraction and going on the offensive with questions and pontifications. Sorry, but not today. lets go back to post 48 & 49.



Originally Posted by Henrin
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.
Click to expand...



In response to that I asked you directly

Who is making the case that the federal government can
Click to expand...

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

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

You then went on the offensive with a bunch of smoke and mirrors and never ever answered the question about your own claims.

So lets hear your answer.
 
haymarket said:
It is pretty obvious that when you get pinned in the corner you attempt to get out through distraction and going on the offensive with questions and pontifications. Sorry, but not today. lets go back to post 48 & 49.
Click to expand...

Its pretty obvious you want to ignore actions taken by your president.
 
Henrin said:
Its pretty obvious you want to ignore actions taken by your president.
Click to expand...

More smoke and mirrors trying to get out of that corner .......... and you are not even good at it either since it so painfully obvious.

So again

Who is making the case that the federal government can


take over business whenever they please because they can "regulate" interstate commerce,
Click to expand...

as you allege in your interpretation of what you think liberals believe?
 
haymarket said:
More smoke and mirrors trying to get out of that corner .......... and you are not even good at it either since it so painfully obvious.

So again

Who is making the case that the federal government can




as you allege in your interpretation of what you think liberals believe?
Click to expand...

What is Obama? What is the people that voted for it? Liberals.

I already answered your question but there it is again.
 
DashingAmerican said:
While I agree somewhat, The at&t - T-Mobile merger wouldn't create a monopoly by a long shot. Thus there is no grounds for the lawsuit in the first place.
Click to expand...

Actually it would create a duopoly. Which would effectively function as a monopoly. Two big firms muscling out everyone else is essentially as bad as one big firm doing the same thing. The government has the duty to ensure that fair compeition occurs in the market. Every single study suggests that this merger would reduce compeition and increase consumer prices. Thus there is grounds for the lawsuit in the first place

On a personal level, I hate the idea of at&t owning T-Mobile because I hate at&t.
Click to expand...

Props to that.
 
Henrin said:
Lets make this real simple so you can follow along. I will now write one word...

Peacemaker.

The purposes isn't to make sure competition stays alive but that commerce stays flowing the way the members of the commerce desire.
Click to expand...

Say what? That may be the most asinine comment I've seen on this forum outside of the basement. The purpose isn't to serve business in way business wants it to work. If we did that, we'd be enacting barriers to entry, barring technologies that make established firms irrelevant otherwise stemming all forms of competition from the current members of commerce. The last thing members of commerce want is competition. Government partially exists to prevent collusion.

No, you just believe in grade school understandings of things you might want to actually study on your own.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle.
 
apdst said:
AT&T was going to re-import 5,000 jobs back to the United States, if this merger went through.

I reckon we can kiss those good-bye, now.

So much for our pro-job president.
Click to expand...

5,000 jobs is basically nothing considering how many they'd cut from both AT&AT and T-mobile. Furthermore, the eventual increases in prices, reduction in competition and overall less free market we'd have would likely reduce total jobs by way more then 5,000.

Seriously, do you ever do any form of critical analysis before you post? Or are you just looking for anything to bash Obama on?
 
rocket88 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That ain't going to happen. Apdst will never answer that. He harps on what amounts to a minuscule amount of jobs while completely ignoring the job losses from a merger and higher prices.

It's amusing watching Adpst attack Obama for basically defending more consumer choices. Some people will jump on anything to attack someone they dislike.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Per the Blue Cross/Blue Shield thing: part of their monopolization (and they're not the only one like this) is becaues they're not permitted to function nation-wide without having a physical hold in the state itself.

Insurance companies are relegated and restricted to certain areas under certain pretenses and requirements - the government, therefor, has removed the 'open and competitive market' required to be an 'evil' monopoly and, instead, made it harder for new companies to gain a foothold and not legal for existing companies to spread out easily.

Ironic - but there it is.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that because opening up state lines was what the President proposed in health care reform legislation but was shot down by guess who...?
 
mike2810 said:
The question to ask is why do they have 80% of the market share? It may not all be economics. Is it they actually do have better coverage, service and plans? My experience in Arizona is Verizon has the best remote area coverage. It also seems to have great coverage when I travel to other States.
Click to expand...

True, but the problem with this mentality is once a large corporation takes hold of such a vast swath of market share, they choke out competition. I understand that's always been how the game of big business is played, but let's not forget how Bell South once took economic advantage of all of us by doing then what credit card/banks, Internet Service Providers and cable companies are doing to us now - claiming so much market share that they raise your rates by charging "hidden fees" and jacking up prizes with no rationale for doing so.

To put it in perspective, it's one thing for a company to offer a sale on a product or service at a certain prize for a limited time. Most customers of cable companies, for example, will jump on a discounted price for cable services for 2-years with the understanding that their rate will increase after that 24-month period. But then when you get your bill after that 2-year period not only do you notice the cost increase - which again, you agreed to when you accepted the service - but you also suddenly find all these "additional charges" in some cases listed as "Misc. Service Fee" of some sort for things you had no idea you'd be subjected to when you agreed to the contract. In other words, your limited time offer for 2-years of service at $29.95/mo suddenly balloons to $59.95/mo and you're left wondering, "Where the hell did those charges come from," and you never really get a straight answer from the service provider. Then the next thing you know your bank account is hit...your credit/debit card is heavily charged and you find yourself deep in debt and for what? Some company sought to dominate market share?

I hear of or read about these types of stories all the time. It gives certain businesses/industries a bad name. Still, for those who say it's the customer's fault that the failed to read and understand their service contract, I say I hope you have a magnifying glass and an attorney next to you as you read. The details are literally in the fine print, but who can honestly read that stuff? This was, in part, what financial reform was about - protecting the everyday consumer from such immoral business practises. So, if all facets of the telecommunications industry are doing these things now, what makes you think a company that once had a terrible reputation of doing this - in fact, I'd say AT&T pioneered the practise - what makes you think they'll do right by their customers once they absorb T-Mobile into their clutches?

It's like another poster said, Verizon does provide a good quality service (although I do think their prize is rather high). But if this AT&T/T-Mobile merger is allow to go through they'll get drowned out and the only way the cell phone industry will be able to compete is if the fed breaks them up just as it did Bell Telephone years ago and force them to become smaller divisions of itself.
 
apdst said:
No, but you did say,

rocket88 said:
I'm just not going to knee-jerk hate on Obama because of who he is.
Click to expand...

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

rocket88 said:
Did I say anything about his race? Nope, you were the one who brought it up. I meant because he's a Democrat.
Click to expand...

The man clarified the meaning behind his words. Let's not make fringe racial arguments where there aren't any. If you truly hate the man's policies then own up to that, but don't get upset when someone points out your parties hypocrisy - same goes for the other side. And don't try to turn the issue around by playing the race card - a charge many of you on the Right claim Liberals constantly do. Frankly, I see very little evidence of that, but we've already had this debate. So, let's just stick with the topic at hand, shall we?

Either you're for monopolies dominating a vast majority of market share or you're for competition within a free market system. But you can't have both!!!

rocket88 said:
Well, you know the one y'all are always crying about Obama ruining (re: the free market system). Until he does something to preserve it, then you attack him for that.
Click to expand...

Check and mate!!!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
More smoke and mirrors trying to get out of that corner .......... and you are not even good at it either since it so painfully obvious.

So again

Who is making the case that the federal government can




as you allege in your interpretation of what you think liberals believe?
Click to expand...
We know what liberals believe, cause you're there to tell us every damn day.
 
obvious Child said:
Say what? That may be the most asinine comment I've seen on this forum outside of the basement. The purpose isn't to serve business in way business wants it to work. If we did that, we'd be enacting barriers to entry, barring technologies that make established firms irrelevant otherwise stemming all forms of competition from the current members of commerce. The last thing members of commerce want is competition. Government partially exists to prevent collusion.
Click to expand...

Lol, not exactly what I said or meant.

Pot, meet kettle.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Are you sure you understand what I even said? From what you just said I'm going with no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom