StrangeSox

This glosses over the fact that it protects corporations who screw over thousands of people a little bit, say $30 each, because no one is going to file a suit over an individual claim of $30. By preventing class-action lawsuits, you're eliminating the ability of millions of people to get recompense for minor wrong-doings by corporations.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) But there was no difference between Gore and Bush;. Remember how no one ever said that but you?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure. The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them. If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information. There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) let the system collapse because it's fatally wounded anyway. Between this and Citizens United, the plutarchy is now firmly entrenched. We lose.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:17 PM) Did you get that from the Republican thread? Because I beat you. You have to admit one thing...any candidate who doesn't do this crap will lose. Especially after Citizens United. Yes I got that from your post.

Another great reason not to vote for Obama: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42780381

he was full of 'em

The flip side of that is you lose the argument either way because you support Republicans!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) Without the people who own something, the rest of that doesn't happen. Another excellent argument for a different ownership structure than stockholder capitalism, where the actual stakeholders and people who actually produce the goods/services benefit the most. http://www.burnsmcd.com/portal/page/portal/Internet/About_Us http://www.jlpjobs.com/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:38 PM) I forgot it's been so much better the last couple of years with a Democrat in office. Our foreign/military policy so vastly different these days. I win either way! This keeps happening today.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:24 PM) Here's the rub. If there is no profit incentive, there is no innovation, there is no creation, and there are no jobs. The more profit incentive you take away, the less reason there is to build a better product to compete, the less reason there is for expansion and hiring of more employees. There is also less reason for companies to go into businesses to lower prices in a marketplace. Everyone supposedly hates monopolies, but taking profit away from industries ensures they will be there because no one goes into those industries. Who builds, produces, designs or provides a better product/service, the people who own something or the people who actually do the work?

I would not disagree with employees (stakeholders) everywhere getting a larger share of profits, so I guess I win either way?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) Come on, he has a point - if Republicans win the next election every American who isn't a Nascar and country music fan will be killed. Also, all kittens will go blind. Science has proven this to be true. On the other hand, 2000-2007.

Disagree, if this gets the right frothing and fomenting about birtherism and "release the transcripts!" and other quasi-racist causes, it's a huge win for the White House.

Trump's taking credit for this. How big of a bump will The Birther get in the GOP nomination polls because of this? Is this a grand scheme orchestrated by the DNC and Trump to ensure an Obama victory?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:52 AM) So you'd still buy a GM if you knew that some random strikebreaker came in and built your car? GM could likely find equally capable non-union labor to perform the same job. The NFL/MLB/NBA/NHL can't. Asking if I'd support union-busting efforts or regarding humans as another commodity or raw resource input, equivalent to tons of steel, brings personal politics into it too much. But working in that system, a millwright is a relatively common commodity who helps generate a small portion of GM's overall revenues while an all-star QB is extremely rare commodity that generates a significant portion of an NFL team's revenues. The only way for the NFL owners to fight giving players a significant share of profits is to behave in a monopolistic fashion and collude to keep players' salaries low.

Check out Sullivan's for a great steak dinner. I know there's one right in Naperville, but at the one in Omaha every single waitress was a 10.

The birther's guide to staying relevant in a post-"long form" world

My point was to differentiate between replaceable Engineer Smith at GM and non-replaceable Peyton Manning, Derrick Rose, Jonathan Toews, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:08 AM) That is also a completely different ownership structure. I was operating under the assumption of an ownership being separate from employee situation. That was an afterthought. When I buy a car from GM, I'm not buying it because Engineer Smith works at GM and is a bad-ass engineer. When I go to a Bulls game, I am going to see Derrick Rose. Professional athletes and entertainers cannot be compared to typical employees because equivalent replacements are essentially non-existent.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:06 AM) And the costs of fielding a team would fall as well if not more drastically. Then why not call the players' bluffs if they'd be just fine without them?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:03 AM) For a few years, buut then it would be fine. Fans would still watch. I really, really doubt they'd have anywhere near the revenue levels.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) The other side of that is true as well. The players wouldn't have a damned thing unless the owners put up the capital to fund the NFL, and its teams, in the first place. And IIRC they are already getting a much larger share of the revenues than pretty much any other business model on the planet, versus any other "employee" group. They're a unique employee group. edit: employee-owned syndicates and co-ops might have higher profit-sharing models, not sure.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) I'm as pro-player as you are here (is that a brand?) but let's also remember one other detail. After Upshaw and Tagliabue, both sides made decisions to ready themselves for a confrontation, and set themselves up in a way that guaranteed one. The Owners negotiated an agreement in 2006 that allowed them a chance to prepare to break the union, a-la what happened in the NHL and NBA. They brought in the guy who ran the owners side in the NHL lost season. They negotiated (illegal) TV contracts to try to cover their own tails while they strove to break the Union. The Players responded by bringing in DeMaurice Smith, a labor dispute litigator. Both sides set themselves up for a lockout. As I said I side with the players more than the owners, but let's not pretend that the players didn't take steps in that direction too. Oh no doubt, I just bristle at the idea that the owners are entitled to all of the revenue and the players should be happy with whatever the owners decide to charitably pay them out of the good of their hearts.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:00 AM) Any company isn't a billion dollar entity without it's employees. The problem is there are always more employees out there. Not with something like the NFL there isn't. The quality would suffer drastically.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 10:56 AM) I dunno, I think that telling your voters that the President is a Socialist Muslim Fascist who is coming for your Medicare and will take it back with him to Muslims in Kenya might be a decent turnout message. But those people already believe that. You don't need to continue demonstrating to the rest of your country how dumb your base is by continuing the birther conversation. Those people are already convinced to vote against Obama.