- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I thought Republicans wanted less government in private business?
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:00 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:00 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
You're confusing Trump loyalists with Republicans
Starting to look pretty much like the same thing lately around here.
2
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:01 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:Its already opened.
I’m just not cool with the pandora’s box that opens.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:01 pm to AUbused
quote:
Starting to look pretty much like the same thing lately around here.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:01 pm to MoroccoMole
quote:
This is not an assumption.
Yes it is. Your argument here is that ALL republicans are going to blindly support whatever Trump wants to do.
They don't
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:02 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I agree. Regulating Google is counter to everything the right claims to stand for yet here they are celebrating the possibility of it. This is the essence of tribalism.
I don't want full government regulation of Google. I'd be fine with across-the-board legislation that does not allow internet search engine and social media websites and platforms to suppress the free dissemination of speech. Doesn't have to be about Google specifically.
This post was edited on 8/28/18 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:03 pm to Horsemeat
quote:Private versus government.
Google is publicly traded
Privately-held versus publicly traded.
not the same thing.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:03 pm to MoroccoMole
Big tech has been public-private collusion from the very start: LINK
This is not the same as a baker telling some freaks he's not going to bake them a cake.
This is not the same as a baker telling some freaks he's not going to bake them a cake.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:06 pm to Smeg
There are other methods of getting all of the services that gmail/google supplies. There is no monopoly.
This post was edited on 8/28/18 at 2:08 pm
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:08 pm to Smeg
>Linking a 4chan screenshot as if it's a smoking gun.
What anons brilliant research doesn't show is that there is more negative news surrounding the right and alt-right. Why wouldn't that populate first from searches? This all sounds like some major paranoia and butthurt melt from the president. Leading to some very dangerous areas of government regulation.
What anons brilliant research doesn't show is that there is more negative news surrounding the right and alt-right. Why wouldn't that populate first from searches? This all sounds like some major paranoia and butthurt melt from the president. Leading to some very dangerous areas of government regulation.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:09 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
There are other methods of getting all of the services that gmail supplies. There is no monopoly.
I agree there is no monopoly. But mere availability of other methods does not exclude a monopoly from existing.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:10 pm to MoroccoMole
quote:
What anons brilliant research doesn't show is that there is more negative news surrounding the right and alt-right.
Huh? It merely cites a court case. What does negative news have to do with it?
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:10 pm to AUbused
quote:
Starting to look pretty much like the same thing lately around here.
Only if you just automatically assume there are two points of view
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:13 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
But mere availability of other methods does not exclude a monopoly from existing.
In the context of the autist screenshot, other methods matter. The girl in the SC decision couldnt exist in a world where she did have 1st amendment rights, because she lived on company property. Therefore the court ruled her rights were violated.
In this case because there are many other avenues for users to express free speech, that implies theres no monopoly, and as such no first amendment right violations.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:14 pm to MoroccoMole
quote:
Are you all really ok with Trump threatening to regulate a private business just because he is unhappy about his Google searches?
Trump is playing 5d chess and you're sitting over there looking at your checkers
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:14 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Given his approval rating among Republicans that is a shrinking distinction.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:16 pm to NYNolaguy1
That isn’t quite right. The court ruled The Court Ruled that ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The court stated that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:17 pm to Horsemeat
quote:
Google is publicly traded.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:17 pm to MoroccoMole
I don't think the Gov should intervene in any private business. It already does that though.
Posted on 8/28/18 at 2:18 pm to Tigerdev
quote:
Given his approval rating among Republicans that is a shrinking distinction.
Yes. However, as foreign as it may be to the lock step Democrats, Republicans don’t have to agree with every single decision or policy. I can still support trump and approve of his overall job performance while criticising any attempt to regulate google.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News