PDA

View Full Version : One in three kids will be arrested before 23 and it has nothing to do with behavior



Guest
02-18-2013, 12:52 PM
It's called "over criminalization"


A recently released study (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Substantial-Fraction-of-American-Youth-Arrested-by-Age-23.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token) claims that nearly 1 in 3 U.S. youths will be arrested for a non-traffic offense by age 23. Zero-tolerance policies and a broadened definition of alcohol offenses are the cause of the trend.
The report, which was published on the site Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/) in December of last year, says that as many as 41 percent of youth have been arrested or taken into police custody. This data marks a sharp increase in arrests from a similar study conducted in the 1960s, which found only about 22 percent of youth would be arrested by age 23..

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/01/report-says-nearly-1-in-3-youths-arrested-by-age-23/


We have more laws than ever before, thus creating a permanent underclass with the criminal record preventing them from getting jobs. There is an excellent book that I recommend called: Three Felonies a Day (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) it goes into how many laws there are, how stupid they all are, and how the government has made felons of all of us.

You have to work in law to understand how absolutely far out there things have gotten.

The XL
02-18-2013, 12:59 PM
I'm shocked I was not one of them.

Guest
02-18-2013, 12:59 PM
I'm shocked I was not one of them.

Well, there's still time to get arrested as an adult.

The XL
02-18-2013, 01:03 PM
Well, there's still time to get arrested as an adult.

Lol, yes. I suppose there is.

patrickt
02-18-2013, 01:27 PM
I agree with you on the over-criminalization of our society. I do not agree with your statement that the arrests--or the taking into custody--are unrelated to behavior. The study needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

One of my pet peeves was that laws that were perfectly logical in the affluent part of town were impractical, unfair, and stupid in the working class neighborhoods. When I suggested laws by neighborhood people went berserk. An example. People who lived in a neighborhood with three-car garages and parking space for another four cars in the driveway wanted 24-hour limits on on-street parking. In neighborhoods with older homes, a one-car garage or no garage this caused problems.

I doubt anyone goes a day without breaking a law but fortunately the police dont' rigorously enforce every law written.

There is a big difference between being "taken into custody" and with being "arrested".

The problem isn't simply with the idiot politicians writing laws, though. People call the police for things that would never had merited a phone call in the recent past. When my son was young, a b-b hole in the window would get a visit to the neighbor's house where the son had a b-b gun. Now, it's call the police. A kid in Denver was put on the violent sex offenders registry when he was six-years old for "playing doctor" with the six-year old neighbor. I know it's hard to believe but that behavior didn't merit police intervention a few years ago.

My thoughts, all laws should have an expiration date. All laws should start with a paragraph on why, exactly, they're being passed. None of that "for the general welfare" crap. One of my complaints was with laws that were passed for one reason and were being enforced in a totally different way.

I would like to see one new law that makes it illegal to harass someone by legal process. You can drive someone crazy by "reporting" them to the government maliciously and having absolute immunity for most of it.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 02:47 PM
Watch "The War on Kids." It's a documentary, they have it on Netflix. Also read the book, "The Scapegoat Generation." Both together show how we've basically made our kids criminals.

garyo
02-18-2013, 02:56 PM
We have made them criminals because we don't have common sense anymore, arresting 5yr olds for using their hands to emulate guns, good grief.

The XL
02-18-2013, 02:59 PM
We need as little laws as possible, frankly.

The XL
02-18-2013, 03:06 PM
Police profiling needs to be labeled as harassment, too. I've had friends harassed because they were black or hispanic. My brother was profiled once for fitting the descritiption of being a 5'11 white male with a sweater on. Then they had the nerve to mock him, and threatened him after he gave them lip back. What is this fuckery?

I hate most cops. At least here in NY.

Guest
02-18-2013, 03:07 PM
Police profiling needs to be labeled as harassment, too. I've had friends harassed because they were black or hispanic. My brother was profiled once for fitting the descritiption of being a 5'11 white male with a sweater on. Then they had the nerve to mock him, and threatened him after he gave them lip back. What is this fuckery?

I hate most cops. At least here in NY.

I can't talk about our clients, if I could...I'd have some stories to tell that would raise the hair on your arms about the NYC cops.

Fearandloathing
02-18-2013, 03:15 PM
Hmmm..


I was arrested, I think, four times before I was 23.

Three of them at peace demonstrations where they haul you away by bus...then let you go ten miles away and make you walk back.

The other time was as a journalist and a rookie Mountie thought he would make a point of me being where I was. They never filed a charge but took me away on obstruction of justice. An hour later the Mountie and his boss were wiping shit out of their underwear after my employer's lawyer "educated them" on freedoms of the press.

I loved being a journalist.

You know you were going to have a really bad day when me and my camera crew showed up...."Hello, I'm not here because everything is OK in you're life..."


What was most fun? The "oh shit" look on their faces when the camera light goes on...

The XL
02-18-2013, 03:15 PM
I can't talk about our clients, if I could...I'd have some stories to tell that would raise the hair on your arms about the NYC cops.

Jesus. I'm sure.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 03:15 PM
It's called "over criminalization"


A recently released study (http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Substantial-Fraction-of-American-Youth-Arrested-by-Age-23.aspx?nfstatus=401&nftoken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&nfstatusdescription=ERROR%3a+No+local+token) claims that nearly 1 in 3 U.S. youths will be arrested for a non-traffic offense by age 23. Zero-tolerance policies and a broadened definition of alcohol offenses are the cause of the trend.
The report, which was published on the site Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/) in December of last year, says that as many as 41 percent of youth have been arrested or taken into police custody. This data marks a sharp increase in arrests from a similar study conducted in the 1960s, which found only about 22 percent of youth would be arrested by age 23..

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/01/report-says-nearly-1-in-3-youths-arrested-by-age-23/


We have more laws than ever before, thus creating a permanent underclass with the criminal record preventing them from getting jobs. There is an excellent book that I recommend called: Three Felonies a Day (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) it goes into how many laws there are, how stupid they all are, and how the government has made felons of all of us.

You have to work in law to understand how absolutely far out there things have gotten.

I think most of the reasons that people get arrested are valid, kids or adults. They commit a criminal offense that involves vandalism, assault, or destruction of property and they should go to jail. What are "all these crimes" that people are getting arrested for that they shouldn't? (except drugs, we've already clubbed that baby seal to death 3 times over!)

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 03:16 PM
Pastor's kid, never arrested.

Ever.

Guest
02-18-2013, 03:19 PM
I think most of the reasons that people get arrested are valid, kids or adults. They commit a criminal offense that involves vandalism, assault, or destruction of property and they should go to jail. What are "all these crimes" that people are getting arrested for that they shouldn't? (except drugs, we've already clubbed that baby seal to death 3 times over!)

There are over 55,000 federal crimes. If I had to decide what was a crime, I'd get as far as the ten commandments.

Guest
02-18-2013, 03:20 PM
Pastor's kid, never arrested.

Ever.

You're kidding me.

Fearandloathing
02-18-2013, 03:27 PM
We need as little laws as possible, frankly.

It's not so much the law, but the way it's being applied.

I mean, come on, we just had a thread about a pair of senior citizens who were pulled over because they had a bumper sticker that LOOKED like a marijuana leaf!

There is a complete lack of reason amid the myth and paranoia that crime is on the increase. The truth is, it is in decline and has been for three decades. But the ratio of law enforcement to individuals continues to tighten with an ever-increasing intrusion by the state.

Ultimately a police state wants as much information on you as possible. Once they have your fingerprints they have you. Once you have been arrested, not convicted, you are on their radar.

Welcome to 1984.

You guys are so fucking paranoid you refused admission to the country of a guy who won tickets to the super bowl because of a marijuana possession conviction......38 years ago!

Wow, scared of a guy whose major crime was getting really, really peaceful.

DO NOT tell me that there isn't a deliberate criminalization of the populace going on.

Fearandloathing
02-18-2013, 03:28 PM
You're kidding me.

It happens. Don't judge him, though. There is always hope.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 03:30 PM
There are over 55,000 federal crimes. If I had to decide what was a crime, I'd get as far as the ten commandments.

So you can't answer the question. Ok.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 03:30 PM
You're kidding me.

An Indian who's never been arrested is exceptionally rare, I know.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 03:31 PM
It happens. Don't judge him, though. There is always hope.

I never did drugs either, not even a single marijuana joint. There's no hope.

The XL
02-18-2013, 03:33 PM
Get rid of all drug laws, get rid of the 21 drinking age, drop it to 18 in public, 14 in private with parental supervision, get rid of all gun laws, and you'd see more than half of the countries "crime" just disappear.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 04:26 PM
Get rid of all drug laws, get rid of the 21 drinking age, drop it to 18 in public, 14 in private with parental supervision, get rid of all gun laws, and you'd see more than half of the countries "crime" just disappear.

So boozing 18 year olds, felons with guns, and a drug inebriated society results in crime "disappearing"?

Fail.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 04:33 PM
So boozing 18 year olds, felons with guns, and a drug inebriated society results in crime "disappearing"?

Fail.

Since you mentioned getting rid of drug laws making "a drug inebriated society," I'm going to ask you this question again, though I expect you to ignore or dodge it again (though an answer would be nice, for once):

Can you show how places like Amsterdam and Portugal, which have eliminated their drug laws, are "drug inebriated" societies?

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 04:38 PM
Since you mentioned getting rid of drug laws making "a drug inebriated society," I'm going to ask you this question again, though I expect you to ignore or dodge it again (though an answer would be nice, for once):

Can you show how places like Amsterdam and Portugal, which have eliminated their drug laws, are "drug inebriated" societies?

Sure, if you can tell me how many of these countries have guns and 80 MPH speed limits.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 04:40 PM
Sure, if you can tell me how many of these countries have guns and 80 MPH speed limits.

Answer mine first, since it actually applies to the discussion at hand.

The XL
02-18-2013, 04:41 PM
So boozing 18 year olds, felons with guns, and a drug inebriated society results in crime "disappearing"?

Fail.

I drunk at 18. Did not commit any act where I hurt someone else. Same can be said for many 18 year olds.

A felon can get an illegal firearm if he wants one. Good luck with that argument, progressive.

Why is it any of your business if someone does drugs if they don't hurt anyone? One of my best friends does drugs, and is productive, smart, and awesome.

You just want to throw nonviolent people in jail for no reason, and you want to expand the size of government, because you're a progressive.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 04:52 PM
Answer mine first, since it actually applies to the discussion at hand.

I don't answer questions with a false premise which is what I was trying to hint at. We're not Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands. We're a different country with different problems. I don't need to even look outside our borders to see people dying from drug abuse and having their lives destroyed. I see families disintigrating from drug use right inside my own country, and this isn't even touching the issue of drug criminalization. There's nothing you can say to convince me that even more drug use would be of benefit to us. Oh, and I don't give a shit what they snort, smoke, and shoot up on Mars either, in case you were about to ask.

Guest
02-18-2013, 04:54 PM
I don't answer questions with a false premise which is what I was trying to hint at. We're not Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands. We're a different country with different problems. I don't need to even look outside our borders to see people dying from drug abuse and having their lives destroyed. I see families disintigrating from drug use right inside my own country, and this isn't even touching the issue of drug criminalization. There's nothing you can say to convince me that even more drug use would be of benefit to us. Oh, and I don't give a shit what they snort, smoke, and shoot up on Mars either, in case you were about to ask.

More people die from hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. I guess you're with Bloomberg on the salt and soda ban then, Mr. Statist.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 04:55 PM
More people die from hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. I guess you're with Bloomberg on the salt and soda ban then, Mr. Statist.

Look who's talking, Ms "let's force Walmart to charge the prices we want them to" statist.

The XL
02-18-2013, 04:56 PM
More people die from hypertension, heart disease, and diabetes. I guess you're with Bloomberg on the salt and soda ban then, Mr. Statist.

Dude, let's just ban heart disease.

The XL
02-18-2013, 04:56 PM
Look who's talking, Ms "let's force Walmart to charge the prices we want them to" statist.

Says the guy who has no problem with them receiving corporate welfare.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 04:58 PM
I don't answer questions with a false premise which is what I was trying to hint at. We're not Spain, Portugal or the Netherlands. We're a different country with different problems. I don't need to even look outside our borders to see people dying from drug abuse and having their lives destroyed. I see families disintigrating from drug use right inside my own country, and this isn't even touching the issue of drug criminalization. There's nothing you can say to convince me that even more drug use would be of benefit to us. Oh, and I don't give a shit what they snort, smoke, and shoot up on Mars either, in case you were about to ask.

As I expected. Dance away, Mr. Police State Progressive.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 04:59 PM
Dude, let's just ban heart disease.

Totes should. Just like we banned the other K words, Katrina and Al Qaeda. No more Ks!

...well, except K Street.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:00 PM
Look who's talking, Ms "let's force Walmart to charge the prices we want them to" statist.

Well, that law is the law...is that not what you always point out when it comes to drugs? How someone/something's actions effect society?

Don't say what's fair for the gander is not fair for the goose.

I'm for no laws on business or people, you're Mr. Pick and choose. Now I'm playing your game. Wal-Mart broke the law. Now, they should be punished, right? For the good of society, yeh?

The XL
02-18-2013, 05:00 PM
It is kinda amusing that an alleged conservative is in favor of bigger government than an admitted Socialist like Thinker, and perhaps even Polly and Kilgram, the other two liberals here.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:01 PM
Dude, let's just ban heart disease.

There you go!

The XL
02-18-2013, 05:03 PM
There you go!

The best solution is always the simplest one.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:04 PM
Says the guy who has no problem with them receiving corporate welfare.

When did I ever support corporate welfare, Sir Lies-a-lot?

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:05 PM
Well, that law is the law...is that not what you always point out when it comes to drugs? How someone/something's actions effect society?

Don't say what's fair for the gander is not fair for the goose.

I'm for no laws on business or people, you're Mr. Pick and choose. Now I'm playing your game. Wal-Mart broke the law. Now, they should be punished, right? For the good of society, yeh?

I just looked it up. "Predatory pricing" is not against the law. Your whole rant is based on bullshit.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:06 PM
When did I ever support corporate welfare, Sir Lies-a-lot?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, according to a report Monday from Good Jobs First, a Washington-based subsidy watchdog group.
"Wal-Mart presents itself as an entrepreneurial success story, yet over a few decades it has made extensive use of tax breaks, free land, cash grants and other forms of public assistance," Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First said in a statement.
The study, which is funded in part by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, found that 91 Wal-Mart stores have received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:09 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/24/news/fortune500/walmart_subsidies/

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Over $1 billion in government subsidies have gone into transforming discounter Wal-Mart Stores from a regional discount store operator into the world's largest retailer, according to a report Monday from Good Jobs First, a Washington-based subsidy watchdog group.
"Wal-Mart presents itself as an entrepreneurial success story, yet over a few decades it has made extensive use of tax breaks, free land, cash grants and other forms of public assistance," Philip Mattera, research director of Good Jobs First said in a statement.
The study, which is funded in part by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, found that 91 Wal-Mart stores have received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads.

How does that translate into me supporting subsidies as in government handing cash to businesses?

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:10 PM
I just looked it up. "Predatory pricing" is not against the law. Your whole rant is based on bullshit.

You did not.

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#2

II. CURRENT LEGAL POLICY U.S. antitrust law entered a new era in 1993, when the Supreme Court decided the Brooke case, the Court’s most important predatory pricing decision in modern times. As interpreted by the lower courts, the decision had an effect on enforcement comparable only to the impact of the Areeda- Turner article in 1975, which launched the cost-based approach to predatory pricing.40 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N40) Indeed, in the five years following Brooke, plaintiffs have not prevailed to final judgment in a single reported case. To appreciate the significance of Brooke we must know something of its historical background, its proper Phillip Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 88 HARV. L. REV. 697 (1975). 13 interpretation and subsequent lower court applications.



Before Brooke: The Areeda-Turner Rule

Predatory pricing enforcement extends over almost the full history of the Sherman Act. Cases were infrequent until after passage of the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936,41 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N41) and the inauguration of a strong enforcement effort by the FTC beginning in the 1940's.42 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N42) In the early years of the Robinson-Patman Act, enforcement essentially protected small local firms from price cutting by large sellers. Discriminatory price cutting by a large interstate seller which injured a local rival, accompanied by predatory intent was virtually per se unlawful.43 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N43) Largely missing was any consideration of the consumer interest in lower prices and vigorous competition.44 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N44) Plaintiffs won most litigated cases, including cases they probably should have lost.45 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N45) It seems no exaggeration to call this the populist era of predatory pricing enforcement.
Areeda-Turner Rule. The enforcement climate changed radically in 1975 with publication of the Areeda-Turner article.46 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N46) The article proposed a single per se standard based on average variable cost—the average unit costs of producing the product excluding fixed costs — which replaced the vague conjunction of factors previously used. The Areeda-Turner rule made an immediate impact on the courts, indeed so much so that plaintiffs’ success rate fell drastically in the years immediately following publication of the article.47 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N47)
Economic Critique. However, a sharp economic critique quickly challenged the Areeda- Turner rule, asserting in general terms the need for a strategic approach, although economists had not yet rigorously proved that predatory pricing could be profitable. The critics charged that the short run AVC rule missed the essential nature of predation—strategic behavior over time. Price cuts by dominant firms must be viewed as strategic communication involving threats and sanctions. Effective policy, therefore, required a predatory pricing rule which considered strategic factors and long run welfare effects.48 (http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/docs/218778.htm#N48) Moreover, the critics did not simply fault the Areeda-Turner Rule. They offered a series of alternative rules, which sought to capture the strategic and intertemporal essence of predatory pricing. The proposals were of two types. The first sought to mirror the seeming simplicity of the Areeda-Turner rule by focusing on a single non-cost parameter that would identify predation. The second attempted to assess strategic conduct directly, relying on multiple criteria, including but not limited to cost.


http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/predatory_pricing.shtm

Pricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company could price below cost long enough to drive out a significant number of rivals and attain a dominant position

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:11 PM
How does that translate into me supporting subsidies as in government handing cash to businesses?

Wal-Mart stores have received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:11 PM
Predatory pricing does not violate anti trust laws. Read your own crap before you post it or risk looking silly!

The XL
02-18-2013, 05:12 PM
When did I ever support corporate welfare, Sir Lies-a-lot?

If you did, you'd speak up against Wal Mart, because, if nothing else, there existence is illegitimate in it's current form.

Keep railing against local places who don't have government help. It's their fault that they can't adapt.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:14 PM
Predatory pricing does not violate anti trust laws. Read your own crap before you post it or risk looking silly!

ricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company could price below cost long enough to drive out a significant number of rivals and attain a dominant position.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:14 PM
Wal-Mart stores have received individual subsidies ranging from $1 million to about $12 million, in the form of free or reduced-priced land, job training funds, sales tax rebates, tax credits and infrastructure assistance, including investment in roads.


I know your Leftwing buddies are characterizing tax breaks, reduced land sales, sales tax rebates, and job training funds already prescribed under law as "subsidies" but that doesn't make it so. It makes you a bullshitter for going along with the mischaracterization. When has Walmart ever been handed over cash by the government which is what subsidies really are?

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:15 PM
Predatory pricing does not violate anti trust laws. Read your own crap before you post it or risk looking silly!

ricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company could price below cost long enough to drive out a significant number of rivals and attain a dominant position.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:16 PM
ricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors, and when that strategy has a dangerous probability of creating a monopoly for the discounting firm so that it can raise prices far into the future and recoup its losses. In markets with a large number of sellers, such as gasoline retailing, it is unlikely that one company could price below cost long enough to drive out a significant number of rivals and attain a dominant position.


the U.S. Supreme Court (http://thepoliticsforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.[ (http://thepoliticsforums.com/#cite_note-4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

The XL
02-18-2013, 05:16 PM
Man, I don't even really care how many Walmarts there are or what they price. I have beef with the loopholes and subsidies they get, whereas small chains and local places get crushed by the tax rate.

If they could somehow have 400 million stores and sell things for pennies, I wouldn't give a shit. As long as they could do it on their own.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:17 PM
I know your Leftwing buddies are characterizing tax breaks, reduced land sales, sales tax rebates, and job training funds already prescribed under law as "subsidies" but that doesn't make it so. It makes you a bullshitter for going along with the mischaracterization. When has Walmart ever been handed over cash by the government which is what subsidies really are?

Shut up about left wing crap. I support all of my local businesses and am against business tax. You're acting like a 5 year old. Ohhhh, you don't like Walmart so you're a leftist.

Because you don't like the practices of one company you hate them all. Jesus, Mike, get a clue.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:17 PM
Man, I don't even really care how many Walmarts there are or what they price. I have beef with the loopholes and subsidies they get, whereas small chains and local places get crushed by the tax rate.

If they could somehow have 400 million stores and sell things for pennies, I wouldn't give a shit. As long as they could do it on their own.

You're not hearing me bitch about Kmart or Target. Mike's off his rocker...

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:21 PM
@SaintCorporateWelfare,

the U.S. Supreme Court (http://thepoliticsforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.[ (http://thepoliticsforums.com/#cite_note-4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing


High hurdles does not mean, as you tried to tell all of us, that it is not illegal. Thus you fail. Again. Second. They were taken to court over it and did what? Lost. Then they did what? Fought back and ....drum roll please...settled.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:21 PM
Shut up about left wing crap. I support all of my local businesses and am against business tax. You're acting like a 5 year old. Ohhhh, you don't like Walmart so you're a leftist.

Because you don't like the practices of one company you hate them all. Jesus, Mike, get a clue.

So in other words, you fail yet again to back up your claims. Leftists like you have been characterizing tax breaks, incentives, and loopholes as "corporate welfare" for decades. For the logical, rational, thinking individual (aka conservative) corporate welfare and subsidies occur when government gives money to business, not when businesses pay less in taxes. It's the type of lying that the Left is known for. Stop lying.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:24 PM
So in other words, you fail yet again to back up your claims. Leftists like you have been characterizing tax breaks, incentives, and loopholes as "corporate welfare" for decades. For the logical, rational, thinking individual (aka conservative) corporate welfare and subsidies occur when government gives money to business, not when businesses pay less in taxes. It's the type of lying that the Left is known for. Stop lying.

Speaking of failure to back up claims and lying (ie, you're a lefty), you said (as your rebuttle that predatory pricing is not part of the Sherman Anti-Trust):

the U.S. Supreme Court (http://thepoliticsforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.[ (http://thepoliticsforums.com/#cite_note-4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing


First, wiki, lol, second..."high hurdles" is entirely different than saying it is not illegal.

Not that you will ever admit it, now you're in a mad scramble to find some obscure somethingoranother to get out of the argument you made that they were doing nothing shady/illegal, despite their being taken to court and losing.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:31 PM
Speaking of failure to back up claims and lying (ie, you're a lefty), you said (as your rebuttle that predatory pricing is not part of the Sherman Anti-Trust):

the U.S. Supreme Court (http://thepoliticsforums.com/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.[ (http://thepoliticsforums.com/#cite_note-4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing


First, wiki, lol, second..."high hurdles" is entirely different than saying it is not illegal.

Not that you will ever admit it, now you're in a mad scramble to find some obscure somethingoranother to get out of the argument you made that they were doing nothing shady/illegal, despite their being taken to court and losing.

All of that is smoke and mirrors for your statist fervor to control what walmart charges for its products. Your passion betrays your need for control. You like to fancy yourself a libertarian, but when it truly comes to allowing Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to move unfettered, you just can't let go. I've talked to real Libertarians who say business is a sink or swim world where people either compete or go down screaming "not fair!" When you conjure government to exercise heavy regulations on the private practices of business, you show your true statist stripes. You can be as snide as you want in your denial of it, but the truth rises to the surface. You're not a libertarian.

Guest
02-18-2013, 05:36 PM
All of that is smoke and mirrors for your statist fervor to control what walmart charges for its products.


I didn't write the laws. I also didn't write the laws or pay for laws to be written that regulates small to mid sized firms out of business. Unlike you, I detest crony capitalism.




Your passion betrays your need for control.


Ever hear me say I hate Target or Kmart? No. Ever wonder why? How about my local businesses? No? Right cuz I don't.




You like to fancy yourself a libertarian, but when it truly comes to allowing Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to move unfettered, you just can't let go. I've talked to real Libertarians who say business is a sink or swim world where people either compete or go down screaming "not fair!" When you conjure government to exercise heavy regulations on the private practices of business, you show your true statist stripes.You can be as snide as you want in your denial of it, but the truth rises to the surface. You're not a libertarian.


All I can say is

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5218/845/320/bullshit.3.jpg

And that we're done. You can talk to XL and TRAT now.

Sinestro/Green Arrow
02-18-2013, 05:38 PM
All of that is smoke and mirrors for your statist fervor to control what walmart charges for its products. Your passion betrays your need for control. You like to fancy yourself a libertarian, but when it truly comes to allowing Adam Smith's Invisible Hand to move unfettered, you just can't let go. I've talked to real Libertarians who say business is a sink or swim world where people either compete or go down screaming "not fair!" When you conjure government to exercise heavy regulations on the private practices of business, you show your true statist stripes. You can be as snide as you want in your denial of it, but the truth rises to the surface. You're not a libertarian.

And you're not an honest, rational anti-progressive. We all have our delusions. Yours are just stronger than most.

Irascible Crusader
02-18-2013, 05:40 PM
And you're not an honest, rational anti-progressive. We all have our delusions. Yours are just stronger than most.

We all have our delusions. Yours are just stronger than most.

Fail.