Comments on: Bar Wars

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:50:43 +0000

For those of you talking about monopoly supporting overpriced liquor this bill is in place to STOP that from happening. Southern Wine & Spirits is a huge wholesaler in the country. They are trying to come in and collapse an Indiana business that employs alot of people. Southern uses regional warehouses (out of state) and the state would lose alot of tax revenue (truck plates, taxes, fuel). Southern also once established would RAISE prices. Do some research on them. They are akin to Walmart without the “Save Money” part.

I like my local liquor store to and allowing grocery/convience stores cold beer would most likely out numerous out of business. I like the selection they carry.

By: IndyAries

IndyAries — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:49:57 +0000

“But again, can't they just fix the budget and property taxes, and go home?”

I'm with you on this !!!!!

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:14:47 +0000

Several owners of well run local companies, with 50-400 employees, have cut their workforces by 20-50% during the past year. These private sector, free market folks, are eager to present an opposition to fixed market fascists & public employee unions.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:04:16 +0000

There's sense in the idea that corporations can become human beings? Seriously?

Wow. Extrapilate that through the various statutes of our government, and it's a donneybrook.

At best.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:13:16 +0000

There's some sense in the idea that when individuals organize themselves, even in the form of a corporation, they likewise have First Amendment protections.

We endure the hateful rants of the KKK & other fascists posing as “environmentalists” (not to mention the public cost for route closures, etc.), as a matter of free albeit offensive speech.

Corporations, while “guilty” of a profit motive, are prohibited from noncompetitive, monopolistic entrenchment, unlike the governmental malpractice of “public school corporations;” one of too many, unionized protection racquets.

By: pascal

pascal — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:24:08 +0000

It is better to read Bork on First Amendment than a fractured decision by what are, essentially, nitwits especially the author of the opinion. Of course, John McCain only ever got his name on one bill and the SC just trashed it-justifying real conservatives passing on his candidacy and allowing the affirmative action president to show us how well affirmative action works in practice. If you really want to dig into First Amendment Church State stands pick up Hamburger and see how Masons and KKK sorts deformed our law. I don't recall where I read it, but Hitler referred to FDR as “…that old Mason”.
And, I don't think your distributor friend did you any favors with his one sided explain. Jim Davis had to go to court to get the ability to purchase wine directly from vineyards(creator of Garfield, the cat) and I don't know that he won that basic right but any public policy concerned with the welfare of consumers would allow that practice.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:33:34 +0000

Sammy, there are other blogs

By: Sammy D.

Sammy D. — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:27:27 +0000

Interesting: Abdul now wants to talk about the Constitution when it comes to alcohol, but not address it when it comes to property taxes.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:17:12 +0000

I tend to agree with you Aires, but the ruling is fascinating reading. It is a close call.

Kennedy wrote for the majority.

I got a copy of the liquor legislation about which Abdul wrote, and read it. It's sloppy writing, won't survive a court challenge, and iI will be amended, heavily, so it's best to wait and see how it comes out of committee.

Except for utilities, there is no lobby more entrenched in legislators' pockets than liquor and casinos. It's been that way since the 70s. Remember the Beer Baron battles? The beer distributors, breweries and the other side virtually owned 30-40 legislators each.

And by "own," I mean exactly that. Bought and bossed.

I like how the various parties try to make this an argument about consumers. It isn't, and never was. It is about the manufacturers getting to determine who sells their product. it jsut happens to be a product that's heavily-licensed.

And therein lies the problem for most folks.

It will be interesting to watch. But again, can't they just fix the budget and property taxes, and go home?

By: IndyAries

IndyAries — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:43:46 +0000

"read the campaign finance SCOTUS decision? Good stuff." -- I'm still wondering how a piece of paper can become a human being, and receive the same rights as a human being.

"When, in the course of HUMAN events, it becomes necessary for one PEOPLE...", "...laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them,"

"...that all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by THEIR Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among MEN, deriving their just powers from the consent of the GOVERNED."

Yeah, I just cannot see how an ARTIFICIAL CREATURE OF THE STATE can have the same rights as MEN. Governments were not created by CORPORATIONS, they are created by human beings, and We the PEOPLE decide to relinquish some of OUR AUTHORITY over to government.

SCROTUS has it wrong on this one.