The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[nonobaddog]

Little-man syndrome, just like lil' schiff-for-brains.

 

[2A_Tom]

Why didn't he do it when he didn't need the Democrats?

Uh, Paul Ryan and the rest of the butt hurt republicans.

 

[Tombs]

Let's say Bernie gets elected, and somehow gets his wish list.
How's he gonna handle the economy falling?
Blame it on the Repubs?
Claim they sabotaged him?

Depends how bad it fails.

If it just harms the mega-corporations with some trust busting, I would be far from complaining as I don't see any difference between a large monopoly and a government. The potential economic fallout would be worth regaining some basic freedoms, especially if we got freedom of speech online again. That's something you can't put a price tag on.

If it really collapses hard, I don't see bernie as the kind that would stand up and take charge to fix it. He's the type that'd probably resign and then refuse to ever talk to the media.

 

[churchmouse]

Uh, Paul Ryan and the rest of the butt hurt republicans.

^This^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[2A_Tom]

Depends how bad it fails.

If it just harms the mega-corporations with some trust busting, I would be far from complaining as I don't see any difference between a large monopoly and a government. The potential economic fallout would be worth regaining some basic freedoms, especially if we got freedom of speech online again. That's something you can't put a price tag on.

If it really collapses hard, I don't see bernie as the kind that would stand up and take charge to fix it. He's the type that'd probably resign and then refuse to ever talk to the media.

Really, more freedom under socialism?

What makes you think there would be an internet?

 

[Tombs]

Really, more freedom under socialism?

What makes you think there would be an internet?

The only reason we don't have freedom of speech online is because government hasn't mandated that corporations respect the bill of rights.
Mind you, enforcing our rights is one of the few legitimate functions of our government.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The only reason we don't have freedom of speech online is because government hasn't mandated that corporations respect the bill of rights.
Mind you, [STRIKE]enforcing[/STRIKE] respecting our rights is one of the few legitimate functions of our government.

FIFY... Rights should never be "enforced", except by the people to whom they belong.

 

[eldirector]

The only reason we don't have freedom of speech online is because government hasn't mandated that corporations respect the bill of rights.
Mind you, enforcing our rights is one of the few legitimate functions of our government.

The only reason we don't have "freedom of speech online" is that we voluntarily give it up.

Don't like a website's policies? Don't log in.

You really want the feds to own INGO's banhammer?

 

[churchmouse]

The only reason we don't have "freedom of speech online" is that we voluntarily give it up.

Don't like a website's policies? Don't log in.

You really want the feds to own INGO's banhammer?

Well said. And we are monitored my friends.

 

[Mongo59]

That is it CM, we can be monitored by either friends or fiends...

 

[KittySlayer]

The only reason we don't have "freedom of speech online" is that we voluntarily give it up.

Your “freedom of speech” does not require me to provide a soapbox for you to exercise it. Zuckerberg isn’t required to give you a platform. INGO isn't required to give you a platform. I am not required to open up my reception hall and set up a PA system for you. Speak all you want but good luck finding an audience.

 

[KLB]

Uh, Paul Ryan and the rest of the butt hurt republicans.

You think Trump is worried about deficit spending?

 

[Doug]

Your “freedom of speech” does not require me to provide a soapbox for you to exercise it. Zuckerberg isn’t required to give you a platform. INGO isn't required to give you a platform. I am not required to open up my reception hall and set up a PA system for you. Speak all you want but good luck finding an audience.

Expect a court fight if you refuse to open up your reception hall and set up a PA system for a Progressive cause.
Your reception hall might just as well be a wedding cake.

 

[Ingomike]

A lot of in the box thinking being posted here. I am as free market of a guy as you will find but have come to understand that purity never works long term. That free market sometimes needs a kick in the azz by the people. Do those saying it's his company he can do what he wants really understand what you are saying? Do you really know the scope of FB as the poster child but others like Google fit as well.

Question! Was the breakup of Standard Oil wrong? Yes or No?

The break-up of Standard Oil into 34 companies, among them those that became Exxon, Amoco, Mobil and Chevron, marked the birth of strong antitrust policy, in the United States and beyond.

The Sherman act came of age with that victory over Standard Oil in 1911. Notable wins followed: against American Tobacco (also in 1911), Alcoa (1945) and AT&T (1982), before the challenge to Microsoft during the 1990s.

What gave the Sherman act the power to blow Standard Oil apart was an explosive mixture of economics and politics that has accompanied antitrust policy ever since. The law sounds decisive, making it illegal to “monopolise, or attempt to monopolise, any part of the trade or commerce” among American states or with foreign countries. Yet on how to apply that in practice, Sherman is vague, leaving it to the courts to decide.

The economic case against Standard Oil was far from proven. Economists still argue whether its aggressive buying of rivals and cut-throat pricing accelerated or retarded the growth of the industry and the ready availability of cheap fuel.

I ask again was the breakup of Standard Oil wrong? Yes or No?

Facebook is engaging in exactly the same practices Standard Oil was.

FB aggressively buys rivals and prices so rivals cannot gain a foothold.

FB is entangled with other governments, some hostile to the US to get their market too.

If you want a FB type connection, like CM noted he had with racing buds, FB is the ONLY viable option, a monopoly.

75% of men and 83% of women on the Internet are on FB. It has shut out or bought out any viable options.

Google and its YouTube do similar.

We are letting these companies and their foreign government entanglements control our speech. This is not anything close to his company he can run it as he wishes. That is a purity death wish. Another swamp that sorely needs drained.

I would ask all to ponder this information from a different angle and see if you still think they should continue to control the market.

https://www.economist.com/business/1999/12/23/standard-ogre

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your “freedom of speech” does not require me to provide a soapbox for you to exercise it. Zuckerberg isn’t required to give you a platform. INGO isn't required to give you a platform. I am not required to open up my reception hall and set up a PA system for you. Speak all you want but good luck finding an audience.

THIS!

 

[Ingomike]

Your “freedom of speech” does not require me to provide a soapbox for you to exercise it. Zuckerberg isn’t required to give you a platform. INGO isn't required to give you a platform. I am not required to open up my reception hall and set up a PA system for you. Speak all you want but good luck finding an audience.

This is just both right and wrong simultaneously. This comment pretends that they are not using special treatment no one else gets. True FB does not have to give a soapbox to anyone. But they are too big and stifling other options of speech. They are also hiding behind a law created in Internet infancy to both exert editorial control and get immunity protection from being responsible for content, unlike any TV, newspaper, magazine, even web blogs that do not have that protection.

I will ask it simply should these mega social media companies have special content immunity, no one else has, given by we the people, and be allowed to exert editorial discretion? That immunity was given because they said they could not control the content, but apparently they can.

Let them choose editorial control or immunity, their choice...

 

[jamil]

Drudge reporting:

Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force...

 

[2A_Tom]

You think Trump is worried about deficit spending?

Uh, ask the guy that brought it up. I only stated why it couldn't happen. I made no policy statement.

 

[jamil]

I’m guessing the plan is, shortly after Bloomberg is sworn in, he commits suicide, and then Hillary is sworn in shortly after.

 

[Dead Duck]

I’m guessing the plan is, shortly after Bloomberg is sworn in, he commits suicide, and then Hillary is sworn in shortly after.

Hmmmm...
There be a lot of "Shortlys" in your Bloomberg post. Coincidences?