| Why? Why is it that Sessions is lambasted for being in bed with SBC, while McCain and Lautenberg are lauded for being in bed with Intel? |
|
| Firstly of all is there any reason to believe that mccain is doing this because he has a large amount of intel stock? Is mccain in intel's pocket?
Secondly sbc is trying to limit competition. Intel is not in a dominant market position in communications and is trying to open up competition, not close it down.
So I think it is specious to argue that an occasional confluence of opinions and interests is the same as being systematically corrupted to protect market control.
You are refusing to recognize very major distinctions. |
|
| reply to footballdude
put another way mccain is not "in bed" with intel. There is not likely to be any hanky panky between the two, they simply are on the same side of this particular issue.
Nor is mccain being "lauded" due to the fact that intel and he are on the same side here. |
|
|
|
| said by asdfdfdf:
put another way mccain is not "in bed" with intel. There is not likely to be any hanky panky between the two, they simply are on the same side of this particular issue. Why is Sessions automatically assumed to be on the take, then? He worked for years as a bell employee, his wife works as a bell employee, he knows the business. Can it not be that he simply agrees with the bells because he thinks munis are wrong, not because he has stock options? All management employees of SBC got stock options a few years ago, are they all then corrupt? |
|
| reply to footballdude
" Can it not be that he simply agrees with the bells because he thinks munis are wrong,... "
Is it possible. yes. Is it likely though?
Do you really, however, believe that the fact that he has half a million dollars in options(and apparently his wife has more as well) and that sbc is his second biggest contributor aren't key motivators, but that he just feels strongly enough about muni activity to take it upon himself to introduce such a bill? Knowing what we know about human corruption can we say it is likely that he "simply agrees with the bells"?
I think that, in such situations, we go with what is probable, given what we know about human nature, rather than simply what is possible. Imagine the circumstances were the same, but that you had no idea what the subject of the bill was, who was involved, or what their political affiliation was. What would you conclude about the likely influences and motivations driving such a person?
It is reasonable to say that there are corrupting influences here that are not present with mccain relative to intel. So I think the attempt to draw a parallel between the two is not just. |
|
| Can't you McCain bashers all see that you're wrong? McCain is trying to PROTECT local governments from the federal intrusion that Sessions's bill works. It's classic Republican: Those of you impugning him should think more closely before making accusations and allegations that are both baseless and demonstrably false. |
|
