12/7/1941 - 9/11/2001 - 1/6/2021

Unfortunately for you, you’re not entitled to a Twitter account because you think they’re a monopoly. Additionally, you don’t get to decide which rules of theirs are allowed.

Sucks for you huh?
Why do you make it personal? Standard Oil was a monopoly and broken up. So in your view they were the only oil/gas provider at the time? Twitter is a monopoly and it will be amended. Sucks for you huh? So again why can’t WF, BAML and JPM merge? There are 1000s of other banks out there?
 
You guys have been arguing that exact same point for years. It hasn't happened.

Go ahead and be naive about it. I don't care. Let me know when they get broken up lmao.
Not yet. But clearly you see that it is as you agreed that WF, BAMl and JPM should not be allowed to merge yet Twitter is bigger in its space than all three of them combined in theirs.
 
What kind of answer are you looking for here?

One more intelligent than any you could ever provide.

The actual LIBERAL positions on these matters would be this:

In the case of a baker, if it were a matter of them refusing to sell a product already for sale, then the public accommodation laws would apply to prevent discrimination. In the case of being required to CREATE a cake complete with language, the baker should be able to refuse for this amounts to FORCED speech rather than public accommodation

In the case of near monopolies systematically denying certain points of view, this would be akin to a baker refusing to serve certain individuals based upon their traits. It WOULDN'T be like protecting the baker against forced speech because far from forcing anybody to say something, the near monopolies are PREVENTING speech.

You are overly simplistic in reducing this to a matter of "businesses can do anything they want". They can't. There are certain responsibilities involved in running a business, and the issue here is whether or not these authoritarians should be able to indulge in such heavy handed censorship while also being exempt from antitrust laws.
 
One more intelligent than any you could ever provide.

The actual LIBERAL positions on these matters would be this:

In the case of a baker, if it were a matter of them refusing to sell a product already for sale, then the public accommodation laws would apply to prevent discrimination. In the case of being required to CREATE a cake complete with language, the baker should be able to refuse for this amounts to FORCED speech rather than public accommodation

In the case of near monopolies systematically denying certain points of view, this would be akin to a baker refusing to serve certain individuals based upon their traits. It WOULDN'T be like protecting the baker against forced speech because far from forcing anybody to say something, the near monopolies are PREVENTING speech.

You are overly simplistic in reducing this to a matter of "businesses can do anything they want". They can't. There are certain responsibilities involved in running a business, and the issue here is whether or not these authoritarians should be able to indulge in such heavy handed censorship while also being exempt from antitrust laws.
Ok. What antitrust laws are you referring to? Can you hold the snark on that place?

Thanks.
 
You said interest rate manipulation but that’s inaccurate. Fed sets the rates and in terms of spreads they d still have 1000s of competitors so why can’t they merge? Waiting….

I figured it would have something to do with taking advantage of the interest rates against our favor. If not, then I don't know. Why?
 

Forum List

Back
Top