• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:27
CEST 03:27
KST 10:27
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway82v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature2Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy8uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event18Serral wins EWC 202549
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple6SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments7[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
Would you prefer the game to be balanced around top-tier pro level or average pro level? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event 2v2 & SC: Evo Complete: Weekend Double Feature
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo)
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 487 Think Fast Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull
Brood War
General
[ASL20] Ro24 Preview Pt1: Runway ASL 20 HYPE VIDEO! Which top zerg/toss will fail in qualifiers? BW General Discussion How do the new Battle.net ranks translate?
Tourneys
BWCL Season 63 Announcement Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches KCM 2025 Season 3 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI The year 2050
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Biochemical Cost of Gami…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1061 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1027

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Forgottenfrog
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
United States1268 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 21:45:31
April 29 2014 21:43 GMT
#20521
On April 30 2014 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
In other Racism news:

DONALD STERLING BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE NBA (he cant even go to the games) Also has been assessed the maximum $2.5 million fine.

The commissioner is doing anything he can to force the sale of the team. (This actually helps the other owners more than it punishes Sterling)

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

Hopefully this serves as a stark warning to the peers he was saying were the reason he didn't want his girlfriend being seen on instagram with 'black people' (Magic Johnson).


He had a private conversation with his GF and now he is force to sell his team. The first amendment is the freedom of speech and he was having a private conversation with his gf. You can fine and ban the man all you want but forcing him to sell his team is absurd. He was emotional and said something wrong, he should not be severely persecuted for it. He never acted on the things he said and if everyone is persecuted for the things they ONLY say, America is going down a slippery slope.
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
April 29 2014 21:57 GMT
#20522
he'll ruin the nba if he remains. it's more of a business decision than moral hunting. get real
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 29 2014 21:58 GMT
#20523
On April 30 2014 06:43 Forgottenfrog wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
In other Racism news:

DONALD STERLING BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE NBA (he cant even go to the games) Also has been assessed the maximum $2.5 million fine.

The commissioner is doing anything he can to force the sale of the team. (This actually helps the other owners more than it punishes Sterling)

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba

Hopefully this serves as a stark warning to the peers he was saying were the reason he didn't want his girlfriend being seen on instagram with 'black people' (Magic Johnson).


He had a private conversation with his GF and now he is force to sell his team. The first amendment is the freedom of speech and he was having a private conversation with his gf. You can fine and ban the man all you want but forcing him to sell his team is absurd. He was emotional and said something wrong, he should not be severely persecuted for it. He never acted on the things he said and if everyone is persecuted for the things they ONLY say, America is going down a slippery slope.

I had no idea the NBA was an arm of the government and was required to uphold the First Amendment! Truly fascinating revelation. Here I was thinking the NBA (and other related people and organizations) were exercising that same freedom by persecuting him by the means they had available to them... My bad.
Forgottenfrog
Profile Blog Joined September 2004
United States1268 Posts
April 29 2014 22:15 GMT
#20524
This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/


He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
April 29 2014 22:18 GMT
#20525
Isn't this only allowed because it's a franchise? I mean, if he personally owned a store - no one could force him to sell the store. It's specifically because it's a franchise that has an overseeing body that this can be allowed.

There is no infringement of rights here and the government has nothing to do with this.
Yargh
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
April 29 2014 22:20 GMT
#20526
what he did is akin to renting out your condo to a meth lab. it affects other clubs in the league and they have a governing process for it.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 22:51 GMT
#20527
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...
Leporello
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2845 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 23:09:05
April 29 2014 22:56 GMT
#20528
On April 30 2014 07:15 Forgottenfrog wrote:
This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/


He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?


You're saying that the NBA shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from owning their teams? Why is that? It's a free enterprise providing nothing more than entertainment, they can conduct business however they please.

Why should the NBA, with its overwhelmingly large fanbase of black Americans, be forced to let a man so ignorant that he can't even tolerate Magic fucking Johnson, own one of their teams? I could even understand run-of-the-mill closet racism, but throwing Magic Johnson into the race-bin strongly suggests a complete lack of respect for the athletes that play the game.

I'm not sure how ownership in the NBA works exactly, but I imagine there are limits to behavior and other extenuating circumstances that can rescind that ownership. It isn't a lifelong right.

Big water
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 23:29:01
April 29 2014 22:59 GMT
#20529
On April 30 2014 07:15 Forgottenfrog wrote:
This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/


He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?


The guy was an OBVIOUS racist among other not nice characterizations. This was not by any stretch of the imagination a revelation about him. People trying to rationalize his comments kind of can't see the forest for the trees?(A little googling will show you what I'm talking about)

Well he only has to sell if 75% of his owner peers say so (not really a question that they will) it's not as if the other owners couldn't stand with him if they wanted though. If you took his word for it, it's really the people he professionally associates with that are the racists anyway.

Whether he was provoked or not could not matter less.

EDIT for fairness in the story: In the interest of pointing out ridiculous stuff I see on both sides, WTF LA NAACP I'm all for forgiveness but damn he hasn't even asked for it. (Looks like that NAACP is just more or less selling their awards.)

Leon Jenkins, president of the LA NAACP, said at a news conference Monday that donations made by Sterling will be returned. He wouldn't say how much money was involved but called it an "insignificant amount."

Source (outdated)

Doesn't really sit well with this statement

He has also over the years contributed to a number of minority charities. Compared to other L.A. franchises, his organization gave more money,"


Source

I guess it may be hard to distinguish between Him and the organization he owned? For instance if the 'franchises' is including donations from players and such too.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 29 2014 22:59 GMT
#20530
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 23:07 GMT
#20531
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-29 23:22:36
April 29 2014 23:18 GMT
#20532
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.

Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
April 29 2014 23:29 GMT
#20533
On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.

Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.

Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
April 29 2014 23:49 GMT
#20534
On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.

Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.

Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.

No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-30 01:13:48
April 30 2014 01:05 GMT
#20535
On April 30 2014 08:49 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.

Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.

Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.

No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way.

I think you'll still have exposure / overlap.

Regardless, safe traditional banks and unsafe shadow banks doesn't leave you with safe system. Moving risk around doesn't eliminate it.

Edit: and hang on, they aren't removing the bank funding into shadow banking with this regulation. Can traditional banks no longer provide liquidity backstops to shadow banking?
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
April 30 2014 03:10 GMT
#20536
On April 30 2014 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 08:49 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’

A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.

Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.

Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.

Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...

Source

Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...

Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...

What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.

Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.

Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.

No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way.

I think you'll still have exposure / overlap.

Regardless, safe traditional banks and unsafe shadow banks doesn't leave you with safe system. Moving risk around doesn't eliminate it.

Edit: and hang on, they aren't removing the bank funding into shadow banking with this regulation. Can traditional banks no longer provide liquidity backstops to shadow banking?


I imagine the idea is transparency in where the risk is, and that safe banks actually are safe.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
April 30 2014 04:06 GMT
#20537
On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..


Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption.
We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23250 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-04-30 04:28:15
April 30 2014 04:22 GMT
#20538
On April 30 2014 13:06 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..


Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption.
We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option.


Preventing unlimited secret donations =/= 'killing free speech' but you know that.

But yeah just take the ref out of the game... that will fix the rule breakers/manipulators... If someone buys the ref you don't just stop refereeing the game.

Not a surprise the same people claiming any limit on anonymous donations or making them public is 'killing free speech', also claim wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic nor even a priority to be targeted'...
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
April 30 2014 04:35 GMT
#20539
^lol anyone actually thinking wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic' is talking out of their ass/watching too much Sean Hannity/listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

People that actually look into that issue with unprecedented focus on actual data spanning decades in the US and around the world claim it IS problematic. Try Thomas Piketty instead of Fox 'n Friends
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
April 30 2014 05:38 GMT
#20540
On April 30 2014 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 30 2014 13:06 Danglars wrote:
On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:
On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..


Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption.
We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option.


Preventing unlimited secret donations =/= 'killing free speech' but you know that.

But yeah just take the ref out of the game... that will fix the rule breakers/manipulators... If someone buys the ref you don't just stop refereeing the game.

Not a surprise the same people claiming any limit on anonymous donations or making them public is 'killing free speech', also claim wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic nor even a priority to be targeted'...
All free speech is equal, but some is more equal than others.

On April 30 2014 13:35 FallDownMarigold wrote:
^lol anyone actually thinking wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic' is talking out of their ass/watching too much Sean Hannity/listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.

People that actually look into that issue with unprecedented focus on actual data spanning decades in the US and around the world claim it IS problematic. Try Thomas Piketty instead of Fox 'n Friends
Wait a second, are you advocating talking out of your ass? Don't watch Fox, Piketty instead? Surely you're some kind of tea party plant made to discredit the left.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Prev 1 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 33m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 244
RuFF_SC2 90
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 3084
NaDa 73
ggaemo 56
ToSsGirL 40
Noble 12
Icarus 4
Dota 2
monkeys_forever690
NeuroSwarm106
LuMiX1
Counter-Strike
fl0m2571
Fnx 1980
C9.Mang0361
Stewie2K243
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken8
Other Games
tarik_tv19841
summit1g9593
JimRising 570
shahzam333
Maynarde158
Livibee69
JuggernautJason21
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1262
BasetradeTV23
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH186
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki34
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• Scarra1880
Upcoming Events
Afreeca Starleague
8h 33m
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Replay Cast
8h 33m
Wardi Open
13h 33m
RotterdaM Event
14h 33m
OSC
22h 33m
Replay Cast
1d 8h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 8h
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 9h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 22h
Afreeca Starleague
2 days
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
Online Event
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
BSL Team Wars
4 days
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
SC Evo League
5 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
5 days
[BSL 2025] Weekly
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
SC Evo League
6 days
BSL Team Wars
6 days
Team Bonyth vs Team Sziky
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-08-13
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.