13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
13.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 21, 2014, 05:34
Jaxx
 
13.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 21, 2014, 05:34
Jun 21, 2014, 05:34
 Jaxx
 
How many of the polled were actually not customers of either? How many of them were dish or directv customers in the footprint of Comcast or TW?

Also, I personally think it may be a good thing. People scream about how it will drive prices up, I think the opposite might actually happen. Or maybe a status quo. Reason I say this is with that much of a bargaining power, they could get the media content providers to reel in THEIR price gouging when it came time for carrier fee negotiations. AMC for example has been seeking double digit increases every time they renegotiate a contract with a cable/sat company.

If Comcast were to pull AMC off the network due to negotiation break down, and was merged with TWC, yeah.... AMC would see a HUGE hit in revenue from it. Far more than what happens now.
12.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 21, 2014, 01:32
12.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 21, 2014, 01:32
Jun 21, 2014, 01:32
 
Cutter wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 13:29:
Mad Max RW wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 09:26:
And once again it will be killed by Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. If the Republicans take the Senate back later this year Obama will simply veto any future bill. The best part is if they win the presidency in 2016 and retain the House and Senate I guarantee they will do nothing about the NSA.

Really? How very strange? Hrm, not let's do a reality check here. As someone pointed out on the Ars forums....

"There is still a distinction, even in the numbers. Republicans voted 135-94, so 41% were in opposition. Democrats voted 158-29, with just 16% in opposition."

But that can't be right! I mean you just said Democrats were the problem. I mean, it's not like you could be severely deluded about this...and everything else is it? I mean sure you and your fellow Tea Baggers are wrong virtually all the time about almost everything, but what does that really mean anyway.

Yeah no shit, this is about control and one party wants more control, they say less gov't so their corps can take over control. They want deregulation because they don't like being told what to do, things are regulated because they cut corners. No one's an angel, here but there are different degrees of suck going on.

I like the history of the Republican's, they'd be out of business without the South. The only reason the South became republican was because of desegregation, meaning they change from Demo's to Repub's over race and we sit here and beat the shit out of Sterling when we have a whole region that changed voting habits because white didn't want to go to school, sit next to, share buildings with blacks. Sad panda.


Avatar 17232
11.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 13:29
11.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 13:29
Jun 20, 2014, 13:29
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 09:26:
And once again it will be killed by Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. If the Republicans take the Senate back later this year Obama will simply veto any future bill. The best part is if they win the presidency in 2016 and retain the House and Senate I guarantee they will do nothing about the NSA.

Really? How very strange? Hrm, not let's do a reality check here. As someone pointed out on the Ars forums....

"There is still a distinction, even in the numbers. Republicans voted 135-94, so 41% were in opposition. Democrats voted 158-29, with just 16% in opposition."

But that can't be right! I mean you just said Democrats were the problem. I mean, it's not like you could be severely deluded about this...and everything else is it? I mean sure you and your fellow Tea Baggers are wrong virtually all the time about almost everything, but what does that really mean anyway.
"Van Gogh painted alone and in despair and in madness and sold one picture in his entire life. Millions struggled alone, unrecognized, and struggled as heroically as any famous hero. Was it worthless? I knew it wasn't."
10.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 12:34
10.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 12:34
Jun 20, 2014, 12:34
 
HorrorScope wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 11:47:
Creston wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 11:42:
But no, keep voting for Feinstein and her ilk!

That being said (no argument) she wasn't part of this vote.

I wasn't sure if she was, and couldn't really be bothered to look it up, so that's why I added "and her ilk."

You know she'll vote against it when it comes across her desk.
Avatar 15604
9.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 12:19
9.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 12:19
Jun 20, 2014, 12:19
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 09:17:
House votes 293-123 to cut funding for NSA spying on Americans.

Won't matter will it? Thought this fell under the "black budget" or under Homeland Security unlimited funding....

Most likely. They are merely voting to end the funding that is a matter of public record, not the off-record kind. It also has to be approved by the Senate. The CIA also gets funneled 'black budget' off the record funding for their various illegal and criminal activities. Some of which is actually tax payer money, but tax payers get no say in it. They are not cutting of black budget money. So tax payers are directly paying for CIA operations that illegally train neo-nazi's, for instance, in Ukraine, or terrorist training camps in Jordan, or funneling stuff to them in Libya and Syria.

Secrecy powers by the state throughout history is to directly hide what a government is doing that is by all definitions illegal and immoral. And that's what those agencies are for.
Avatar 37119
8.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 11:47
8.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 11:47
Jun 20, 2014, 11:47
 
Creston wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 11:42:
But no, keep voting for Feinstein and her ilk!

That being said (no argument) she wasn't part of this vote.
Avatar 17232
7.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 11:44
7.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 11:44
Jun 20, 2014, 11:44
 
Pigeon wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 10:05:
"A full 56% of Americans oppose the merger, and only 11% of respondents were in favor of it.... three quarters of respondents — 74% — believe that the merger will increase cable and internet prices for everyone."

What's amazing is that 11% of the country apparently either works for Comcast or gets paid by them for their vote.
Avatar 15604
6.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 11:42
6.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 11:42
Jun 20, 2014, 11:42
 
Those 123 that voted against it should IMMEDIATELY be voted out of office at the next possible opportunity.

But no, keep voting for Feinstein and her ilk!
Avatar 15604
5.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 10:33
5.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 10:33
Jun 20, 2014, 10:33
 
Eventually Comcast will cease the amusing corporate disguise and become the government.
Avatar 51617
4.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 10:05
4.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 10:05
Jun 20, 2014, 10:05
 
"A full 56% of Americans oppose the merger, and only 11% of respondents were in favor of it.... three quarters of respondents — 74% — believe that the merger will increase cable and internet prices for everyone."

Saying over half doesn't really illustrate the disparity in support as some 33% don't have an opinion. When you take that into consideration 56% in opposition is huge. Among those with an opinion its 5 opposed to 1 in favor.

It shouldn't even be in consideration if politicians actually listened to their constituents. But then I understand how the sacks of money Comcast is contributing can muffle the of pissed off voters...
3.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 09:34
3.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 09:34
Jun 20, 2014, 09:34
 
Snowden is being justified. More hero than villain, these actions are proving it and these actions speak louder than words.

This comment was edited on Jun 20, 2014, 11:45.
Avatar 17232
2.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 09:26
2.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 09:26
Jun 20, 2014, 09:26
 
And once again it will be killed by Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. If the Republicans take the Senate back later this year Obama will simply veto any future bill. The best part is if they win the presidency in 2016 and retain the House and Senate I guarantee they will do nothing about the NSA.
Avatar 15920
1.
 
Re: Morning Legal Briefs
Jun 20, 2014, 09:17
1.
Re: Morning Legal Briefs Jun 20, 2014, 09:17
Jun 20, 2014, 09:17
 
House votes 293-123 to cut funding for NSA spying on Americans.

Won't matter will it? Thought this fell under the "black budget" or under Homeland Security unlimited funding....
13 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older