ackman
join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA | reply to RDC17
Re: The minorities love this deal! Yours was a pretty ignorant, hateful, and demeaning remark that added nothing to the context of the article. Well done. |
|
|
|
RDC17
join:2011-05-15
Baltimore, MD | Huh?
It's a DSLR fact that hispanic cultural groups, cattle rancher associations, and now GLAAD have either said they are or wanted to say they are in favor of the deal, probably in exchange for a nice monetary gift from AT&T.
AT&T knows how to play their cards. If the government strikes down the deal, they can say that the government is against minority interests. That will surely rustle some feathers!
Sorry I'm not as politically correct as you are, but I'm not wearing a white robe and hat. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to ackman
I think you drew conclusions that aren't there. I see the OP edited the post so perhaps I didn't see what you did. Based on the current, edited post, how is it hateful to lump Hispanics, cattle ranchers and gays together with the NAACP in the context of being pro merger? The reply is in context to an article that claims many groups are supporting causes that have no connection to the real reason they exist. Considering the typical interest these groups represent, the OP is drawing attention, with sarcasm, that these groups alone seem to support AT&T's position and how that means there is probably very little real support. Not because these groups are irrelevant but because it's pretty far-fetched to believe these groups support something that's so drastically disconnected from their core causes. |
|
 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5 | They are lumped together because they've accepted monetary compensation in exchange for publicly voicing pro-AT&T views.
--
PRescott7-2097 |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to joako
Re: The minorities love this deal! Is that really the issue? If these groups have genuine reasons to support the merger, having AT&T pay them to be vocal and even motivate their base is not a disservice to their members nor does it have any ethical implications. Although it might be hard to defend, there's nothing improper.
In my opinion, the real connection is the suspension of incredulity required to accept that they have genuine reasons to support the merger. Sans the Cattle Ranchers, these groups are typically pro regulation and watchdog large corporations for rights violations. They generally oppose large mergers because of lost jobs that they believe might unfairly target their base.
Regarding Cattle Ranchers, they usually own lots of ground and a portion of their members may actually profit from leasing ground to cell towers. The consolidation of the two companies will likely negatively affect these leases. At best, this is an extremely weak connection but it's a con, not a pro. |
|
| Really?
If a company pays an auditor to cook the books, that's ethical?
The emphasis is that these pro-merger organizations are not QUALIFIED to make any vocal or motivational claims.
There's a reason you cannot give legal advice without licensure... |
|
