Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

STOP THE KOCH BROTHERS!!l!!!!

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:38:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
They are trying to end the War on Drugs and increase civil liberties.

The KOCH brothers must be stopped. They gave $40K to Scott Walker, the MAX allowed by state law. That's small potatoes compared to the $100+ million they give to other organizations. These organizations will terrify you. If the anti-union thing weren't enough, here are bigger and better reasons to stop the evil Kochs. They are trying to:
1. decriminalize drugs,
2. legalize gay marriage,
3. repeal the Patriot Act,
4. end the police state,
5. cut defense spending.

Who hates the police? Only the criminals using drugs, amirite? We need the Patriot Act to allow government to go through our emails and tap our phones to catch people who smoke marijuana and put them in prison. Oh, it's also good for terrorists.
Wikipedia shows Koch Family Foundations supporting causes like:
1. CATO Institute
2. Reason Foundation
3. cancer research ($150 million to M.I.T. - STOP THEM! KEEP CANCER ALIVE!)
4. ballet (because seriously: FVCK. THAT. SHlT.)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Kochs basically give a TON of money (millions of dollars) to the CATO Institute. Scott Walker, $40K? HAH! These CATO people are the REAL problem. They want to end the War on Drugs. Insane, right? We know that the War on Drugs keeps us SAFE from Mexicans and keeps all that violence on their side of the fence. More than 30,000 Mexicans killed as of December! Thank God Mexican lives don't count as human lives. Our government is doing a good, no, a great job protecting us and seriously, who cares about brown people or should I say non-people? HAHAHA! Public unions are good, government is good, and government protects us from drugs and brown people. The Kochs want to end all that. Look, as far back as 1989 CATO has been trying to decriminalize drugs. Don't worry, nobody listens to them because they are INSANE.
http://www.cato.org...

CATO also rejects the Patriot Act. How can you hate the Patriot Act? Are you not American? They made it easy for you to understand by putting the word "Patriot" in the legislation. That means you should vote YES. Giving up our civil liberties is not a big deal. We need our government. Whether it's Obama or Bush, we can all agree that the TSA is really good at what they do. God, those patdowns feel SOOOO good.
http://www.cato.org...

The Kochs also support Reason Foundation. You don't know about that? Let me tell you. Basically, REASON Foundation is a bunch of cop haters. Last month, they did a "news" (as if we wanna know!) story on three cops that beat up an unarmed black kid. In the aftermath, the cops were suspended, sat around doing nothing and got paid (like that's a bad thing!). I don't know about you, but that puts a smile on my face for four reasons:
1. I hate black people,
2. I love the police,
3. I love it when police beat up black people for no reason,
4. I love that it comes out of taxpayers' money, because it's not like it's really my money.

The Kochs are trying to end this. The Kochs must be stopped.
http://reason.com...

CATO trying to cut defense spending:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...

Gay marriage. YUCK. That's just obvious. If the KOCH Brothers have their way, there will be homos getting married left and right. Here's another scary thought: gays raising children.
http://www.cato.org...

Here are some videos from Glenn Greenwald, one of those "gays." He writes for the liberal Salon.com, but don't let that fool you. He's in the Koch Brothers' pocket. Here are some videos to prove my point:
1. Here's Glenn Greenwald talking about drug-decriminalization at REASON:

2. Yeah, he's that Glenn Greenwald that also defends WikiLeaks.

If there's one thing I know about billionaires, it's that they only care about money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros. They aren't fooling me. Bill Gates isn't fooling me with his vaccination campaign in Africa. He's just trying to make African children live longer so they will buy more copies of Windows. Wow. Not even trying to hide it.
Now, I don't know why the KOCH brothers want gay people to have the right to marry. Everybody knows marriage is for a man and a woman. Even Obama believes that. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve amirite? I haven't figured out the angle, yet. Maybe it's like this:
1. legalize drugs
2. legalize gay marriage
3. sell drugs, oil and Koch napkins to gays at their weddings
4. ????
5. PROFIT$

I don't know exactly how it would work, but we can all agree that they're evil. Think about it. CATO and REASON are the only institutions OPENLY advocating these positions. Who would do such a thing? Have they no shame? Minority opinions MUST BE SILENCED.
Anyway, we must reject everything that the KOCH brothers do in Wisconsin and around the country. We will succeed as long as we stick to the GROUP-&-THINK.
YES WE CAN. The truth is always simple. You're either with us or against us.

Stop the Koch menace. http://www.reddit.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2014 10:41:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah, I don't get the hate for the Koch brothers. They're libertarians. They aren't even in the top-ten in terms of overall spending (https://www.opensecrets.org...). Incidentally, the top ten spenders are all liberal Democratic groups.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 10:44:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:41:25 PM, TN05 wrote:
Yeah, I don't get the hate for the Koch brothers. They're libertarians. They aren't even in the top-ten in terms of overall spending (https://www.opensecrets.org...). Incidentally, the top ten spenders are all liberal Democratic groups.

I guess anyone who has tremendous power and influence will tend to be hated.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 11:06:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/2/2014 10:38:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

1. People act in their own interest
2. The interests of the extremely wealthy are opposed to the interests of those who are not extremely wealthy
Conclusion: Stop the Koch Brothers
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 11:25:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're thinking of it the wrong way. The Koch Brothers are merely a symbol for the extent to which our elected politicians are beholden to large corporate financial interests. Which, it is important to note, by and large push for (and succeed in guaranteeing) economic policy which is far, far to the right of the kinds favored by the vast majority of the American populace - vis a vis taxation, corporate policy, spending on education and benefits, etc.

The reason to oppose the Kochs - or rather what they represent - is not because of the policies they seek to implement, per se, but because of what their huge, undeniable, and ominously disproportionate power over our society says about our political system. Certainly it's an indictment. The United States has been an unusually business/corporate-centric/driven society for some time now, but even people like Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would be shocked at how nowadays, interest groups which push the political agenda are almost exclusively driven by super wealthy pockets of corporate power - corporate power which advocates for the needs of its CEOs and shareholders, with as little regard for the "lower downs" as possible - with increasingly marginal influence from counterbalancing forces like unions, or really any kind of organized, populist coalition whatsoever. It is important to note that even in America this political process is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Socio-economic policy changes in America used to progress through a struggle and eventual compromise between all sorts of countervailing forces and interests; you can see this in some of the programs created under FDR and LBJ, for example... and also in the party platforms throughout those eras in which the planks were the result of battle and debate between each parties' liberal/moderate and conservative wings... ; since the onset of Reagan and coinciding with the era of globalization beginning in the late 70s, the ball moves increasingly only in one direction. The result is that the economic interests of the population are simply swept aside in favor of big business interests. This is what the Koch phenomenon represents to me.

If you look at the Republican party platform from 1956, you see clauses for protection of Social Security (which Eisenhower ended up dramatically expanding, to great success and popularity), extending the minimum wage, improving unemployment benefits, etc. The compromise with conservatives was that they included a major clause on doing everything with a balanced budget. But by and large they all saw which way America was going, they saw the incredible popularity of the New Deal and so even conservative leaders like Robert Taft had at that point decided to work with it and be fiscally responsible within that established framework. The debate was over; history, social progress, and the American electorate had decided it. Eisenhower wasn't going to f*ck over the country with a regressive agenda focused on overhauling the entire federal apparatus when it wasn't what the people wanted, when it wasn't good for social cohesion, and when even significant voting blocs of his own party supported continuing Roosevelt's policies.

Clearly this was year an exception as the moderates happened to have had control of the platform writing process that year, but the point is that back then, the forces which had a pull on the two major parties were both much closer to the interests of the electorate and the "average voter." Obviously there will always be tension with, say, the factory owner working with a certain budget and the worker demanding a higher wage. But the divide between the two sides has gotten so insane in recent years, and the clout of the worker so marginalized, it's really quite ridiculous. And "back then", whenever "then" is, it seems that the competing forces had this sort of natural tension between representing the powerful and the average citizen... And once again, their interests weren't seen as so divergent as they are now. There was such a concept as a united national interest.

So yeah, I'm ranting, but I wanted to illustrate what I think of when I think of "stopping the Koch brothers." Their interests are radically out of line with the interests of the vast majority of the population. Their interests and the interests of my family and virtually everyone I have ever met, are mutually exclusive. The overwhelming majority of the country is effectively disenfranchised and has no voice in government or in any organized powerful social organization demanding political clout. The marginalization of the American worker has been a slow and steady path in the last 40 or so years but now has gotten so bad that even mainstream pundits are finally forced to recognize and talk about it. It's gotta be reversed or the working people will continue to be shafted despite agreeing broadly on certain economic goals (and the areas of agreement would be even more expansive if people like the Kochs didn't spend obscene amounts of money trying to convince stupid and poor Republicans in the South to vote against their own interests).

Stop the Koch brothers.

Peace out
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 11:29:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also have to mention how terrible it is that they shell out untold millions trying to convince god knows how many people that climate change is a made up shindig crafted by a bunch of liberal scientists who just want to give the government more control over our lives.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 11:36:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And I also have to ask you if you seriously believe that in the current political climate, they Koch brothers are going to focus their lobbying/financial interests AT ALL on reigning in the police state and curbing the military budget, when the mainstream Republican party still stands staunchly in favor of both of those things (including all the candidates the Kochs most enthusiastically and prominently donate to... can you guess who they supported in the 2012 election? Hint, it wasn't a libertarian, or anyone close. Can you guess whether they donated nearly 100 million dollars to make Obama a one term President in order to better suit their economic agenda OR so they could call for more civil liberties for the average American and reduce our military footprint in the middle east?)
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 8:35:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 11:25:36 PM, jat93 wrote:
You're thinking of it the wrong way. The Koch Brothers are merely a symbol for the extent to which our elected politicians are beholden to large corporate financial interests. Which, it is important to note, by and large push for (and succeed in guaranteeing) economic policy which is far, far to the right of the kinds favored by the vast majority of the American populace - vis a vis taxation, corporate policy, spending on education and benefits, etc.

The reason to oppose the Kochs - or rather what they represent - is not because of the policies they seek to implement, per se, but because of what their huge, undeniable, and ominously disproportionate power over our society says about our political system. Certainly it's an indictment. The United States has been an unusually business/corporate-centric/driven society for some time now, but even people like Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon would be shocked at how nowadays, interest groups which push the political agenda are almost exclusively driven by super wealthy pockets of corporate power - corporate power which advocates for the needs of its CEOs and shareholders, with as little regard for the "lower downs" as possible - with increasingly marginal influence from counterbalancing forces like unions, or really any kind of organized, populist coalition whatsoever. It is important to note that even in America this political process is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Socio-economic policy changes in America used to progress through a struggle and eventual compromise between all sorts of countervailing forces and interests; you can see this in some of the programs created under FDR and LBJ, for example... and also in the party platforms throughout those eras in which the planks were the result of battle and debate between each parties' liberal/moderate and conservative wings... ; since the onset of Reagan and coinciding with the era of globalization beginning in the late 70s, the ball moves increasingly only in one direction. The result is that the economic interests of the population are simply swept aside in favor of big business interests. This is what the Koch phenomenon represents to me.

If you look at the Republican party platform from 1956, you see clauses for protection of Social Security (which Eisenhower ended up dramatically expanding, to great success and popularity), extending the minimum wage, improving unemployment benefits, etc. The compromise with conservatives was that they included a major clause on doing everything with a balanced budget. But by and large they all saw which way America was going, they saw the incredible popularity of the New Deal and so even conservative leaders like Robert Taft had at that point decided to work with it and be fiscally responsible within that established framework. The debate was over; history, social progress, and the American electorate had decided it. Eisenhower wasn't going to f*ck over the country with a regressive agenda focused on overhauling the entire federal apparatus when it wasn't what the people wanted, when it wasn't good for social cohesion, and when even significant voting blocs of his own party supported continuing Roosevelt's policies.

Clearly this was year an exception as the moderates happened to have had control of the platform writing process that year, but the point is that back then, the forces which had a pull on the two major parties were both much closer to the interests of the electorate and the "average voter." Obviously there will always be tension with, say, the factory owner working with a certain budget and the worker demanding a higher wage. But the divide between the two sides has gotten so insane in recent years, and the clout of the worker so marginalized, it's really quite ridiculous. And "back then", whenever "then" is, it seems that the competing forces had this sort of natural tension between representing the powerful and the average citizen... And once again, their interests weren't seen as so divergent as they are now. There was such a concept as a united national interest.

So yeah, I'm ranting, but I wanted to illustrate what I think of when I think of "stopping the Koch brothers." Their interests are radically out of line with the interests of the vast majority of the population. Their interests and the interests of my family and virtually everyone I have ever met, are mutually exclusive. The overwhelming majority of the country is effectively disenfranchised and has no voice in government or in any organized powerful social organization demanding political clout. The marginalization of the American worker has been a slow and steady path in the last 40 or so years but now has gotten so bad that even mainstream pundits are finally forced to recognize and talk about it. It's gotta be reversed or the working people will continue to be shafted despite agreeing broadly on certain economic goals (and the areas of agreement would be even more expansive if people like the Kochs didn't spend obscene amounts of money trying to convince stupid and poor Republicans in the South to vote against their own interests).

Stop the Koch brothers.

Peace out

Once again - they are 11th in donations this year. The other the groups ahead of them are all liberal Democrat groups. Do you oppose them as well?
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 5:29:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 8:35:34 AM, TN05 wrote:

Once again - they are 11th in donations this year. The other the groups ahead of them are all liberal Democrat groups. Do you oppose them as well?

If you had read my post, the answer would be self evident. Granted, I think the damage the Koch do by convincing poor Southern Republicans to vote against their own economic interests, by pouring millions into anti-climate change propaganda, and by helping to foster an environment of irrational fear in order to promote their favored policies, is far worse and more severe in utilitarian terms than, say, George Soros spending hundreds of millions to defeat Bush in 2004. I will admit that - I think the effects of the Koch Brothers' lobbying efforts are simoly more destructive and pernicious for the working class than most liberal donors.

Still, I clearly said that the reason to oppose the Koch brothers is not even their preferred policies per se, but what their influence on our society says about our political system. In that sense, to me, they and any other obscenely wealthy individual(s) who pour money into influencing public policy, are symbolic of the corporate takeover of our society and the disenfranchisement of working America as a force that matters on Capitol Hill.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 5:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/4/2014 5:29:17 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/4/2014 8:35:34 AM, TN05 wrote:

Once again - they are 11th in donations this year. The other the groups ahead of them are all liberal Democrat groups. Do you oppose them as well?

If you had read my post, the answer would be self evident. Granted, I think the damage the Koch do by convincing poor Southern Republicans to vote against their own economic interests, by pouring millions into anti-climate change propaganda, and by helping to foster an environment of irrational fear in order to promote their favored policies, is far worse and more severe in utilitarian terms than, say, George Soros spending hundreds of millions to defeat Bush in 2004. I will admit that - I think the effects of the Koch Brothers' lobbying efforts are simoly more destructive and pernicious for the working class than most liberal donors.

Still, I clearly said that the reason to oppose the Koch brothers is not even their preferred policies per se, but what their influence on our society says about our political system. In that sense, to me, they and any other obscenely wealthy individual(s) who pour money into influencing public policy, are symbolic of the corporate takeover of our society and the disenfranchisement of working America as a force that matters on Capitol Hill.

Because the OP is merely phrased in hyperbole and caricature, whereas your responses are based upon an impressive level of knowledge and reasonableness, I would be pleasantly surprised if anyone who disagrees with you addresses directly what you ACTUALLY WROTE.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz