Always nice to meet a fan.

Key word: choice. Coercion means forcing someone into compliance - if there is a choice (all or none), there can be no coercion. Also, the "end providers" aren't over a barrel, the customers are. The providers provide what the customers want, and that usually includes ESPN, whether you like it or not. I hope that changes very soon, but too many people still want to watch sports. If ESPN can get providers to agree that their channel is a part of every base package because demand is so high, then good for them.

It's horrible to you, but illegal? Which law or case establishes that?

And yes, personal choice is the best that I have. I cut the cable cord years ago. How is that nonsense? At least in the US we have a choice about what we pay for (probably in other countries too, but you never know). Bundling is common with many things, and has been the standard in the cable industry since its inception. How is this any different? It's suddenly illegal and falls under RICO? How many legal dramas do you watch?

Who wants a sports channel to be innovative? You watch a sports channel to watch sports. And no pocket is being picked. Companies willingly pay them for their channel because the vast majority of cable subscribers want it. They always want to pay less, of course, but the other option (no ESPN) just isn't viable in most cases. Maybe that will change sooner rather than later, but I doubt it. Sports are the only thing most people still watch live, so those types of channels are still valuable.

It's not a bad contract as in no company is getting screwed over due to ignorance of the law (or some other reason). Teams of lawyers certainly went over it in detail and both parties knew exactly what they were getting into. If ESPN got Verizon to sign something saying "your customers must keep ESPN for twelve consecutive months" then Verizon must oblige. Again, this sucks for the customer, but it is not a bad contract.

It's not a horrible contract if both parties agreed to it. It's not good for the customer, but no one is forced to sign up for cable. I understand why ESPN would want that language in there because if I were interested only in football, I could subscribe for those five months and not the others. What ESPN wants is my money year-round, and it sounds like Verizon agreed to promise ESPN just that by signing the contract. Maybe it says something different as Verizon claims, but ultimately I fear there will just be some settlement and we'll go back to the status quo.

I wasn't actually arguing that he was wrong. I was pointing out that he invalidated his own argument.

You just invalidated your entire argument there. If Ds were truly different than Rs in this regard, then more Ds would have been on Franken's side from the beginning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.quora.com/Homelessn...

So maybe not the norm, but it does happen.

I guess I'll have to roll out my usual feedback to Google when they change something: "Stop fixing shit that isn't broken."

While a business shouldn't be allowed to not serve a segment of society, a business shouldn't be forced to contribute to something to which they object (on any grounds, but religious grounds for this argument). So while a bakery should have to sell a pre-made cake/cookie/whatever to any customer that walks in, it shouldn't have to make a cake promoting a gay wedding or a NAMBLA meeting or a Jihad Dance Party or Furry Orgy (I'm not equating those things, I'm just listing things that many people would object to being a part of). In an extreme example, a Jewish-owned bakery shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika or "Death to Jews" written on it. Some people would see making a cake with a rainbow on it for a gay wedding as just as offensive. Let them believe that and take your business elsewhere - why would you want to give them money in the first place? Bring attention to that business, boycott them, do everything legally possible to embarrass them, but don't force them to go against their beliefs, no matter how wrong you think that those beliefs are.

Parties fight - it's what they do. If they didn't, their "constituents" might go from slightly upset to mildly upset. Good/great Presidents find a way to compromise through all of the fighting. Do you think Reagan didn't fight with Tip? Clinton didn't fight with Newt? You may not agree with what they got passed, but they got shit done.

Then why did the pilots not declare an emergency (or at the least radio someone/anyone) upon seeing the smoke/smelling the fumes? It's not like smoke and fumes make you unconscious immediately.

Yes.

Like annual domain registration fees?

So whoever "owns" it gets a half price discount every year? Brilliant.