Jump to content


Photo

Evil Koch Bros Thread - Now With Soros!


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:14 PM

Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.
Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#2 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 04 April 2014 - 08:04 AM

Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.

 

I guess all the facts that contradict that were done by his brother?  They're playing Good Koch, Bad Koch?


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#3 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:54 AM

Kochs 'main cause' of climate change


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#4 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 May 2014 - 10:56 AM

Koch Supports Gay Marriage, Pot Legalization, And Ending Wars


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#5 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 07 May 2014 - 02:45 PM

 

And I applaud their stances on all those things, but the obvious question then is, as a libertarian, why do you endorse and vote your economic stances rather than your social stances?  Why is government interference in the economy more important than government interference in the bedroom or with civil rights?  This is a question I would pose to MANY libertarians, since most seem to follow this pattern of calling themselves libertarian yet voting predictably Republican.  And there are two answers that seem possible.  First is that you simply think economic issues are more important, meaning that you vote economics and not social issues.  If you have so many libertarian positions that you can simply ignore then you aren't really a libertarian.  You're an economic conservative, who falls into the GOP for economic reasons and is willing to sacrifice the stereotypically liberal small government issues on the alter of social conservatism to form an economic coalition.  These are strange people, to me, because social conservatives have come to dominate the party, meaning that these economic conservatives sacrifice on many principles to pursue the economic agenda.  Again, this isn't something most real libertarians do.   

 

The second possibility is that the reason economic interests matter more than social ones is because of WHO these people are.  As (presumably) straight, white men who are NOT fighting in wars, these social/foreign policy positions that they have don't have any tangible and direct effect on them...meaning that pursuing the economic side of things, which clearly does have such an effect, is the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of others' rights.


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#6 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 May 2014 - 04:03 PM

Good points. Libertarians have to pick one of the parties to have an impact. Third parties are not viable in our system. Seems for most Libertarians that they find more common ground with the GOP.

 

It is interesting that Harry Reid has made attacking the Kochs a focus. It is telling that that will be a central part of the Democrats mid-term election strategy. 


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#7 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 08 May 2014 - 09:16 AM

Good points. Libertarians have to pick one of the parties to have an impact. Third parties are not viable in our system. Seems for most Libertarians that they find more common ground with the GOP.

 

It is interesting that Harry Reid has made attacking the Kochs a focus. It is telling that that will be a central part of the Democrats mid-term election strategy. 

 

I find the idea of campaigning against people who aren't actually in politics or running to be silly and demeaning to the process.  Dems do it with the Kochs (as if greedy billionaires are a sudden and new phenomenon), GOP does it with Soros (because they love greedy billionaires, but not for the other side).  The truth is that the people aren't the problem at all.  The problem is the money in the process.  This can be expanded out to highlight the lack of competition that applies to third parties as well.  We all get so distracted by "the other side" that we fail to see that most problem in American politics can be traced to the structure of the system itself.  Is it any wonder that Americans don't vote, with only two viable parties that they're repeatedly taught to hate in a back and forth fashion? 

 

As John Adams wrote,

 

"There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.  This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#8 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 27 August 2014 - 01:50 PM

Liberal Super PAC Tries To Defend Taking Soros Money While Bashing Kochs


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#9 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:54 AM

 

I'm shocked --- SHOCKED --- to find that there's hypocrisy going on here! 

 

Yeah, both sides are in bed with money.  That's one reason I don't like the personalization of politics.  You can't see Koch as a problem without seeing Soros as a problem too (I personally see them BOTH as a problem, not for personal political reasons, but for money-in-politics reasons).  The left has been going ape-shit trying to demonize the Kochs, but you don't have to go back very far to a time when no one knew who the fuck a Koch was and the right spent considerable time demonizing Soros (as far as the right is concerned, he's basically a communist...can you BE a billionaire commie?  Me thinkey no...).  Hypocrisy is a two way street.

 

So, as much as I might disagree with the Koch's on some issues and don't like the way they use their money to try to get politicians to cripple unions, I feel quite strongly that the problem is NOT the Koch brothers, but a system that allows moneyed interests to have such influence.  When the left releases it's press release "GOP Senate Candidates Bow at Koch throne" my reaction is...OF COURSE THEY DO!  Why not?  They system is based in money and these guys have it.  Were I a GOP politician, I'm sure I'd be down on all fours for these guys too (metaphorically of course...we all know that no Republican politicians engage in homosexual activity ;) ).

 

Most Americans are completely clueless about how many problems there are with our system of government and electoral system.


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#10 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 November 2014 - 10:53 AM

Worked so well for Harry so far:

 

'Dear Koch Brothers: We Aren't Going Anywhere'


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#11 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 07 November 2014 - 11:31 AM

Worked so well for Harry so far:

 

'Dear Koch Brothers: We Aren't Going Anywhere'

 

This sort of shit drives me nuts.  I can't tell you how many Koch oriented fundraising emails I got.  Demonizing two billionaires doesn't show me jack shit about your policies or plans.  If you have a problem with the Kochs, you really have a problem with the financing of our elections and a Supreme Court that believes companies are people.  The Kochs' spending on elections is just an outcome of those issues, not the cause.


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#12 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:04 PM

Each side has rich guys that spend money on elections. They usually lose more than they win.


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#13 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:22 PM

Each side has rich guys that spend money on elections. They usually lose more than they win.

 

I don't have numbers, but I look at the money issue as a wash, really.  The GOP has historically done better, but that's not the case anymore.  In a Dem year, Dems will do better, especially in high profile races.  So I'm not worried that the money favors one side or the other or that my values are left out because I"m NOT a billionaire.  What does bother me is the implicit quid pro quo of major spending for political access.  I don't know where the Koch's live, but they have one Representative and two Senators...they don't need mine too, or the other 529. 

 

I also see money as problematic in that it generally makes our politics worse, more malevolent and spiteful, and dumber.  Many democratic republics have a system where campaigning lasts approximately 2-6 months.  For our presidential elections, it's damn near two full years, and that's if you DON'T count all the positioning that Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton have done over the last few months.  Money helps that to happen and it means that we rarely settle down to think about how to make things better since we're already campaigning.  Let's have our fights and then get to work.  But we can't...we'll start talking about 2016 very very soon.


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head

#14 artcinco

artcinco

    Inactivist

  • Admin
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationZones of moisture...

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:47 PM

If they could get the tax code down to 1-2 pages from the several thousand that might obviate the need for all the money in politics.

 

As for elections there are truisms. Sixth year incumbent presidents usually get shellacked. And lately GOP does better in mid terms, Dems in Presidential.


Why do you read that kind of crap, Art? Seriously, I don't get it.

#15 freedom78

freedom78

    Advanced Member

  • TFHL Peep
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,662 posts
  • LocationIndiana

Posted 07 November 2014 - 01:25 PM

If they could get the tax code down to 1-2 pages from the several thousand that might obviate the need for all the money in politics.

 

As for elections there are truisms. Sixth year incumbent presidents usually get shellacked. And lately GOP does better in mid terms, Dems in Presidential.

 

I could honestly support switching to the Mexican system (presidential terms...not corruption and drug lords...).  They have one, six year term.  We almost always end up disillusioned with our Presidents, so why waste so many years (two years from every two term pres in recent memory, and a lot of one termers, too)?  I'm not sure I'd really support it, but I can see the up side. 

 

A big problem I see with the Presidency is that everyone wants to make their mark and do something major, but we have so many things from before that are either irrelevant, ineffective, or counterproductive that we need a good 4-8 year period of smart, outcomes oriented, governmental thinking about laws that we have and if they're doing what they need to be doing (and not in the GOP "we hate everything Obama did" way...talking nonpartisan and pragmatic, rather than ideological). 

 

Won't happen, though.  Everyone worries about legacy.


Sister burn the temple
And stand beneath the moon
The sound of the ocean is dead
It's just the echo of the blood in your head




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users