Which one of these was the worst president ever?

[Liability]

President Obama.

President Carter used to set the standard, but he has already been overtaken by President Obama.

 

[Sallow]

You find factual information about basic economics rediculous?

How unsurprizing.

Um..no.

What's ridiculous is that you don't see that one person with 40 billion is a dangerous thing. Gates set up a defacto monopoly with Microsoft and gobbled up software companies like candy. He embedded the windows IE with the Windows OS and even made it almost impossible for any one to write apps for Windows. When he was called on this, several judgements found that indeed Microsoft violated several anti-trust laws. However, Gates had enough money to get that overturned. And it didn't hurt that he had a supreme court and President friendly to his cause. Microsoft is the type of company that squashes true capitalism. Because capitalism without competition..is not capitalism. It's corporatism.

No, what's rediculous is you not knowing that the commentary on wealth creation had nothing to do with what some people might consider unethical business practices. Bill Gates has every right to gobble up whatever companies choose to sell to him. Bill gates has a perfect right to put his programming into his programming. Bill gates has a perfect right to protect his program from encroachments and use by other peoples programming. You on the other hand have a perfect right not to buy his programming, there's plenty of open source stuff out there. Bottom line is Bill gates can put together and market his programming any way Bill Gates wants to, and you can choose to either buy it or not. Bill Gates does not have to make his programming compatible with anyone elses. That would be how liberty works.

All of this is completely incorrect. There are a plethora of laws and regulations regarding how one conducts business in this country.

 

[BenNatuf]

President Obama.

President Carter used to set the standard, but he has already been overtaken by President Obama.

Proving that any waste of sperm can do in two years what it takes four years for a mere waste of flesh to accomplish.

I think the nobel committee was premature, Obama has conducted an experimiment which proves beyond all doubt that progressive economics do not work... that's got to be worth a prize in economics.

 

[Sallow]

Truly ridiculous.

Its actually accurate.

It's simply amazing how liberals seem to think putting limits on one mans ability to persue happiness will somehow mean that anyone else has more of it.

Ah..so your in favor of Cat houses? The Mafia? Unlicensed Doctors? Unlicensed Lawyers? Abolishing the USDA? OSHA? Unlicensed Drivers? Backroom Abortions? Drug Dealers?

Seriously?

 

[BenNatuf]

Um..no.

What's ridiculous is that you don't see that one person with 40 billion is a dangerous thing. Gates set up a defacto monopoly with Microsoft and gobbled up software companies like candy. He embedded the windows IE with the Windows OS and even made it almost impossible for any one to write apps for Windows. When he was called on this, several judgements found that indeed Microsoft violated several anti-trust laws. However, Gates had enough money to get that overturned. And it didn't hurt that he had a supreme court and President friendly to his cause. Microsoft is the type of company that squashes true capitalism. Because capitalism without competition..is not capitalism. It's corporatism.

No, what's rediculous is you not knowing that the commentary on wealth creation had nothing to do with what some people might consider unethical business practices. Bill Gates has every right to gobble up whatever companies choose to sell to him. Bill gates has a perfect right to put his programming into his programming. Bill gates has a perfect right to protect his program from encroachments and use by other peoples programming. You on the other hand have a perfect right not to buy his programming, there's plenty of open source stuff out there. Bottom line is Bill gates can put together and market his programming any way Bill Gates wants to, and you can choose to either buy it or not. Bill Gates does not have to make his programming compatible with anyone elses. That would be how liberty works.

All of this is completely incorrect. There are a plethora of laws and regulations regarding how one conducts business in this country.

Site the law that states Bill Gates can't buy a company that's offered up to sale to him.

Cite the law that says Bill gates can't include in his programming anything he wants to thats his.

Cite the law that states Bill gates does not have a right to protect his copyrights and patents from unauthorized intrusions

Cite the law saying you can't choose to buy programming other than what Bill Gates offers

Cite the law that says Bill Gates can't market his products as he see's fit

Cite the law saying Bill gates must make his programming compatible with other programming

There are to my knowledge no such laws, there additionally is no law capping Bill gates ability to persue happinness. Yes, there are laws about business, there are standards of ethics, there are regulations. But there is NOTHING that caps Bill Gates ability to persue as much Happinness as he wants to. To my knowledge Bill gates did not make one nickle by taking one other person's wealth and making them poorer, he made it by selling a product in billions of exchanges of equal value which left him with more wealth and every person who purchased the product with an equal ammount of value in the product as they spent to get it. If you paid $200 for the liscence rights to use Bill gates product then the liscence rights are valued by you at $200... you've lost nothing.

 

[BenNatuf]

Its actually accurate.

It's simply amazing how liberals seem to think putting limits on one mans ability to persue happiness will somehow mean that anyone else has more of it.

Ah..so your in favor of Cat houses? The Mafia? Unlicensed Doctors? Unlicensed Lawyers? Abolishing the USDA? OSHA? Unlicensed Drivers? Backroom Abortions? Drug Dealers?

Seriously?

See, now you're being further ridiculous, I don't support thieves, i support a free market. The government can infringe on one persons rights only when they have either

1. The constitutionally granted authority to do so.
2. They are acting to ballance the rights of one person against those of another or others.

Bill gates persuit of happiness does not infringe on your rights one iota.

 

[Immanuel]

No, what's rediculous is you not knowing that the commentary on wealth creation had nothing to do with what some people might consider unethical business practices. Bill Gates has every right to gobble up whatever companies choose to sell to him. Bill gates has a perfect right to put his programming into his programming. Bill gates has a perfect right to protect his program from encroachments and use by other peoples programming. You on the other hand have a perfect right not to buy his programming, there's plenty of open source stuff out there. Bottom line is Bill gates can put together and market his programming any way Bill Gates wants to, and you can choose to either buy it or not. Bill Gates does not have to make his programming compatible with anyone elses. That would be how liberty works.

All of this is completely incorrect. There are a plethora of laws and regulations regarding how one conducts business in this country.

Site the law that states Bill Gates can't buy a company that's offered up to sale to him.

Cite the law that says Bill gates can't include in his programming anything he wants to thats his.

Cite the law that states Bill gates does not have a right to protect his copyrights and patents from unauthorized intrusions

Cite the law saying you can't choose to buy programming other than what Bill Gates offers

Cite the law that says Bill Gates can't market his products as he see's fit

Cite the law saying Bill gates must make his programming compatible with other programming

There are to my knowledge no such laws, there additionally is no law capping Bill gates ability to persue happinness. Yes, there are laws about business, there are standards of ethics, there are regulations. But there is NOTHING that caps Bill Gates ability to persue as much Happinness as he wants to. To my knowledge Bill gates did not make one nickle by taking one other person's wealth and making them poorer, he made it by selling a product in billions of exchanges of equal value which left him with more wealth and every person who purchased the product with an equal ammount of value in the product as they spent to get it. If you paid $200 for the liscence rights to use Bill gates product then the liscence rights are valued by you at $200... you've lost nothing.

I won't cite any laws, but I will point you to something that happened when I was a kid. My dad worked for AT&T at the time. The government took care of the monopoly then. Whether they do so with Microsoft or not is yet to be determined.

Bell System divestiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, under which "Bell System" agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business, AT&T Computer Systems. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint.

Immie

 

[BenNatuf]

All of this is completely incorrect. There are a plethora of laws and regulations regarding how one conducts business in this country.

Site the law that states Bill Gates can't buy a company that's offered up to sale to him.

Cite the law that says Bill gates can't include in his programming anything he wants to thats his.

Cite the law that states Bill gates does not have a right to protect his copyrights and patents from unauthorized intrusions

Cite the law saying you can't choose to buy programming other than what Bill Gates offers

Cite the law that says Bill Gates can't market his products as he see's fit

Cite the law saying Bill gates must make his programming compatible with other programming

There are to my knowledge no such laws, there additionally is no law capping Bill gates ability to persue happinness. Yes, there are laws about business, there are standards of ethics, there are regulations. But there is NOTHING that caps Bill Gates ability to persue as much Happinness as he wants to. To my knowledge Bill gates did not make one nickle by taking one other person's wealth and making them poorer, he made it by selling a product in billions of exchanges of equal value which left him with more wealth and every person who purchased the product with an equal ammount of value in the product as they spent to get it. If you paid $200 for the liscence rights to use Bill gates product then the liscence rights are valued by you at $200... you've lost nothing.

I won't cite any laws, but I will point you to something that happened when I was a kid. My dad worked for AT&T at the time. The government took care of the monopoly then. Whether they do so with Microsoft or not is yet to be determined.

Bell System divestiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, under which "Bell System" agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business, AT&T Computer Systems. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint.

Immie

Microsoft does not have a monopoly, last I checked it had some pretty vibrant competitors, Apple among them.

I would also add that the advent of wireless and broadband communications technology would have done the same thing without breaking up AT&T.

 

[Immanuel]

Site the law that states Bill Gates can't buy a company that's offered up to sale to him.

Cite the law that says Bill gates can't include in his programming anything he wants to thats his.

Cite the law that states Bill gates does not have a right to protect his copyrights and patents from unauthorized intrusions

Cite the law saying you can't choose to buy programming other than what Bill Gates offers

Cite the law that says Bill Gates can't market his products as he see's fit

Cite the law saying Bill gates must make his programming compatible with other programming

There are to my knowledge no such laws, there additionally is no law capping Bill gates ability to persue happinness. Yes, there are laws about business, there are standards of ethics, there are regulations. But there is NOTHING that caps Bill Gates ability to persue as much Happinness as he wants to. To my knowledge Bill gates did not make one nickle by taking one other person's wealth and making them poorer, he made it by selling a product in billions of exchanges of equal value which left him with more wealth and every person who purchased the product with an equal ammount of value in the product as they spent to get it. If you paid $200 for the liscence rights to use Bill gates product then the liscence rights are valued by you at $200... you've lost nothing.

I won't cite any laws, but I will point you to something that happened when I was a kid. My dad worked for AT&T at the time. The government took care of the monopoly then. Whether they do so with Microsoft or not is yet to be determined.

Bell System divestiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bell System divestiture, or the breakup of AT&T, was initiated by the filing in 1974 by the U.S. Department of Justice of an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T.[1] The case, United States v. AT&T, led to a settlement finalized on January 8, 1982, under which "Bell System" agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business, AT&T Computer Systems. Effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Holding Companies, also known as Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), or "Baby Bells". Afterwards, AT&T, reduced in value by approximately 70%, continued to operate all of its long-distance services, although in the ensuing years it lost portions of its market share to competitors such as MCI and Sprint.

Immie

Microsoft does not have a monopoly, last I checked it had some pretty vibrant competitors, Apple among them.

I would also add that the advent of wireless and broadband communications technology would have done the same thing without breaking up AT&T.

Microsoft may not be a monopoly. The word "yet" might also go well in that sentence. I would agree with you that at this moment it might be difficult to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly, however, if something suddenly happened to Apple (remember they are not too big to fail) then you would play hell convincing me they were not then a monopoly.

To me, Apple is garbage. After my experience with the IIc (I know that goes back a hell of a long way in the computing world) I would not buy an Apple if Steve Jobs held a gun to my head.

Microsoft most definitely controls the PC world when you remove the rotten Apple.

In reality, the question is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly but whether or not the government can make a case that it is and break it up.

Immie

 

[BenNatuf]

I won't cite any laws, but I will point you to something that happened when I was a kid. My dad worked for AT&T at the time. The government took care of the monopoly then. Whether they do so with Microsoft or not is yet to be determined.

Bell System divestiture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Immie

Microsoft does not have a monopoly, last I checked it had some pretty vibrant competitors, Apple among them.

I would also add that the advent of wireless and broadband communications technology would have done the same thing without breaking up AT&T.

Microsoft may not be a monopoly. The word "yet" might also go well in that sentence. I would agree with you that at this moment it might be difficult to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly, however, if something suddenly happened to Apple (remember they are not too big to fail) then you would play hell convincing me they were not then a monopoly.

To me, Apple is garbage. After my experience with the IIc (I know that goes back a hell of a long way in the computing world) I would not buy an Apple if Steve Jobs held a gun to my head.

Microsoft most definitely controls the PC world when you remove the rotten Apple.

In reality, the question is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly but whether or not the government can make a case that it is and break it up.

Immie

There is also plenty of open source competition out there, and I don't see how Apple failing (if it did) would mean microsoft had to go. If Apple fails it's Apple's fault, not microsofts.

 

[Immanuel]

Microsoft does not have a monopoly, last I checked it had some pretty vibrant competitors, Apple among them.

I would also add that the advent of wireless and broadband communications technology would have done the same thing without breaking up AT&T.

Microsoft may not be a monopoly. The word "yet" might also go well in that sentence. I would agree with you that at this moment it might be difficult to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly, however, if something suddenly happened to Apple (remember they are not too big to fail) then you would play hell convincing me they were not then a monopoly.

To me, Apple is garbage. After my experience with the IIc (I know that goes back a hell of a long way in the computing world) I would not buy an Apple if Steve Jobs held a gun to my head.

Microsoft most definitely controls the PC world when you remove the rotten Apple.

In reality, the question is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly but whether or not the government can make a case that it is and break it up.

Immie

There is also plenty of open source competition out there, and I don't see how Apple failing (if it did) would mean microsoft had to go. If Apple fails it's Apple's fault, not microsofts.

Well, that would be up to the attorneys for Microsoft to argue.

I'm not saying they should go, but, there would be many who would be saying they should. Nor would I believe anyone would be so brash as to call for the dismantling of Microsoft. They would simply do as they did with AT&T and break it up into as many pieces as they could get away with.

Immie

 

[BenNatuf]

Microsoft may not be a monopoly. The word "yet" might also go well in that sentence. I would agree with you that at this moment it might be difficult to prove that Microsoft is a monopoly, however, if something suddenly happened to Apple (remember they are not too big to fail) then you would play hell convincing me they were not then a monopoly.

To me, Apple is garbage. After my experience with the IIc (I know that goes back a hell of a long way in the computing world) I would not buy an Apple if Steve Jobs held a gun to my head.

Microsoft most definitely controls the PC world when you remove the rotten Apple.

In reality, the question is not whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly but whether or not the government can make a case that it is and break it up.

Immie

There is also plenty of open source competition out there, and I don't see how Apple failing (if it did) would mean microsoft had to go. If Apple fails it's Apple's fault, not microsofts.

Well, that would be up to the attorneys for Microsoft to argue.

I'm not saying they should go, but, there would be many who would be saying they should. Nor would I believe anyone would be so brash as to call for the dismantling of Microsoft. They would simply do as they did with AT&T and break it up into as many pieces as they could get away with.

Immie

people can argue whatever they like... and sometimes courts even give thier whinings affect. The constitution does allow for a person to be deprived of property so long as due process is followed. It is however an afront to liberty, where a court comes down in that ballancing act usually has to do with whatever argument the government puts forward as being for the "public good". Personally, I think it's horseshit, but it is plausible.