So you like paying for services you don't use.
I cut the cable cord years ago.
Most people aren't ass-holes like you...
Always nice to meet a fan.
Yes it is when the choice is all or none. They have the end providers over a barrel in that regard.
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?
Also, a shout out to Al Franken for being one of, if not the only top politicians to have questioned and criticized this merger from the beginning.
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.
Doing business with whomever one wants, while denying to do so to others on whatever whim, is a fundamental tenet of freedom
That bullshit argument was rejected pretty soundly 50 years ago. It is reasonable in limited circumstances, for businesses which can only deal with a very limited range of customers. It is not considered reasonable for any business which claims to be open to the public--we decided long ago that you're either open to the public or you're not. You cannot be open to the public except for women; you cannot be open to the public except for blacks or latinos. Etc.
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.
Considering Republicans fought him at every turn - what did you expect.
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.