| And so it begins.... Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
--
Make the homies say HO and the girlies wanna SCREAM! |
|
| said by Riusaki:Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by silentlooker:said by Riusaki:Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US. |
|
|
|
| said by BF69:said by silentlooker:said by Riusaki:Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US. The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration. |
|
 SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1 | reply to Riusaki
Amen. And companies wonder why people hate them so.
I wonder how much they paid for the vote?
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service. |
|
 wdoa
join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA | reply to silentlooker
Corporate Shill, what a surprise. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to silentlooker
Hmm... I wish that I could make myself work like a corporation. Anyone attempting to sue me would have to end up in arbitration.
Personally dislike frivolous lawsuits that only exist to waste time, transfer money from party A to B (whether they deserve it or not). Eg Kid rides a bike down a dark road, crashes and sues the bike manufacturer for not providing a warning label on riding on a dark road.
I am against corporate fraud - eg. Misrepresenting a product so that it can sell more and run the competition into the ground (eg. MS vs. Netscape back in the day). |
|
 DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:78
 ·DIRECTV
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker: The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.
That's probably where it needs to head. |
|
 batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | said by David:said by silentlooker: The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.
That's probably where it needs to head. That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court.
Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract.
I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold.
A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury. |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | I doubt AT&T would care about the 5 customers a year that would try to do this.
People need to realize that our rights are being eroded every day. Our country is slowly becoming a corpratist dictatorship. Republicans cant win an election, fine figure out how to disqualify voters, make it nearly impossible to vote etc. Cause new voters who are sick of the status quo probably wont vote republican this round after all the crap they promised has not come to pass.
Congress passing a law beneficial to consumers? Please when did that last happen. Was it in 2008 when credit card companies could now get money from bankrupt customers eliminating that whole concept of "Unsecured Debt", or maybe it was the Bankruptcy reform that made it more difficult to file bankruptcy, and you have to wait longer to do so after a bankruptcy. All of this right before our economy went to $hit. This government helps those who have the most money, and oh wait, yeah in 2010 the supreme court on the same vote line, voted to allow corporations and PAC's to be able to contribute unlimited money to a candidate.
The regular people are limited to 2500 dollars spread across any election even your mayor.
I guess if I want to donate unlimited money I have to go out and get a LLC done.
Wake up people. The Rich are in control and they're doing everything in their power to make sure it stays that way and that they get even more of "Their Share." It's the same group of people who will be able to live in another country after they've sucked us dry.
|
|
| reply to batterup
said by batterup:said by David:said by silentlooker: The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.
That's probably where it needs to head. That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court. Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract. I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold. A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury. Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause. |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to silentlooker
It means you also lose, even when you are right.
You get screwed, you lose.
You fight it, you lose.
You go to court, you lose.
When all legal recourse is exhausted, all that remains is illegal recourse.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker: Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause.
True but you know that the SCOTUS will have to rule on that. Remember these are contracts willingly entered into for nonessential unregulated services.
I have POTS, town water, natural gas and electricity and I did not have to agree not to sue to get them. In fact it is the law that they have to supply them as long as I pay my bill. In fact gas and electric can't be shut off in the winter even if I don't pay my bill.
Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·row44
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:said by Riusaki:Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did So you think corporations should have more rights than citizens???
Really?
It is an American's right to a court trial in cases of being wronged.
This supreme court ruling is anti-american citizen.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·row44
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to batterup
This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.
I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else. |
|
| reply to silentlooker
Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time. |
|
batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie.Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ | reply to r81984
said by r81984:This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.
I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.
People check the box that they agree with whatever it is they didn't read just like when they install software. |
|
| reply to r81984
said by r81984:said by silentlooker:said by Riusaki:Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
Make sure to have lots of lube.
What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did So you think corporations should have more rights than citizens??? Really? It is an American's right to a court trial in cases of being wronged. This supreme court ruling is anti-american citizen. It's simple, they agree to such contract. They are not forced to get service from at&t and many do not. Same thing with other company, you're not forced to sign contract with them. So why should such language be illegal in the contract? |
|
| reply to xrobertcmx
said by xrobertcmx:Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.
You can decline to accept that job unless they change contract. Why should company be prohibited from writing such contract? |
|
| reply to Riusaki
this is bs. |
|
