65 Conservative Celebrities

[Spartanmack]

That's the criteria? Legal? That's not a fixed criteria. If we're talking about rich people and politics, what's legal is more inclusive each year.

I'm not saying i support the system, but it is what it is for now. Are you saying the Koch brothers owe you and me an explanation for what they do as private citizens even if what they're doing isn't breaking the law? So anyone can make any baseless accusation in the court of public opinion and every private citizen is obligated to defend themselves against every attack?

 

[Michchamp]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-p...-of-koch-brothers-money-in-gop-114908002.html

Anyone know what the spun retort is, or has it yet to be written..?

Does that question presume the film itself is completely factual and devoid of spin - you know like "insert name of Michael Moore film here"?

To my knowledge, no one has disputed any of the assertions made in the film. THe burden is on them.

It's easy enough to do. Calling the filmmakers names of course may work for you and your crowd, but if Scott walker and the kochs have other evidence lets see it.

sorry, you have 3 arrows in your quiver - racism, bush and "nothing worth responding to". You are one pathetic loser.

not true. I directly refuted the point you made (see above quotes), which you responded to by changing the subject and rambling, which you often do.

hey, as long as you type something in response... that's an argument, right?!?

I'll also add that PBS had the documentary for a while and neglected to publish it (David Koch is a big PBS donor, and the whole decision reeks of special favors), so it's not like they haven't had a chance to refute any of the assertions in the movie. PBS' ombudsman was even forced to respond to this.

I'll spell out the point about "name calling" too, since you struggle with things like that: implying the filmmakers are dishonest & tell tall tales like Michael Moore (whatever) is name calling. Argue semantics all you want, but that's how I see it. You may have an ally in Red on this one, since he likes to argue semantics. We'll see if that urge overcomes his newfound liberal stance on the Koch Brothers & Buying Elections.

 

[TheVictors]

Does that question presume the film itself is completely factual and devoid of spin - you know like "insert name of Michael Moore film here"?

No, I was just wondering who was out in front of the movie and what the disclaimers were. I doubt the film is without bias but there are certain factual realities that differentiate how the Koch Bros operate and how the omni-present reply to the Kochs, George Soros, does.

I was unaware of the movie but that doesn't mean there hasn't already been an attempt to discredit it.

And as we head into the next two miserable years of election campaigning and commercials, this sort of propaganda will only get worse.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not saying i support the system, but it is what it is for now. Are you saying the Koch brothers owe you and me an explanation for what they do as private citizens even if what they're doing isn't breaking the law? So anyone can make any baseless accusation in the court of public opinion and every private citizen is obligated to defend themselves against every attack?

I'm saying people being responsible for their actions goes beyond just what is legal. To say something is none of my business because it is legal is crazy talk. Are all of your opinions on this board dealing with people breaking the law?

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm saying people being responsible for their actions goes beyond just what is legal. To say something is none of my business because it is legal is crazy talk. Are all of your opinions on this board dealing with people breaking the law?

No, they're not. But in this particular case where chump says "the burden is on them" to respond to some filmmaker they probably don't give a shit about, yeah I think it's entirely OK for them to remain silent in the face of what they probably regard is an unfounded, scurrilous attack.

And to borrow a chump tactic, until I hear these people whining about the 100s of millions of union dues spent on lobbyists, super pacs and backing political candidates, their complaints about the Kochs doing the same thing holds no water.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We'll see if that urge overcomes his newfound liberal stance on the Koch Brothers & Buying Elections.

It's not newfound liberalism. I just don't like concentrated power and I don't really care if it's government, media, business, military, or religion. I don't think "power corrupts" is limited to one type of power or another.

 

[Gulo Blue]

No, they're not. But in this particular case where chump says "the burden is on them" to respond to some filmmaker they probably don't give a shit about, yeah I think it's entirely OK for them to remain silent in the face of what they probably regard is an unfounded, scurrilous attack.

And to borrow a chump tactic, until I hear these people whining about the 100s of millions on lobbyists, super pacs and backing political candidates, their complaints about the Kochs doing the same thing hold no water.

Fine. Then say that. Not "As long as what they do is legal, it's not of my business or yours what they do with their money"

 

[Spartanmack]

hey, as long as you type something in response... that's an argument, right?!?

You mean like this...

You said a lot of words there... Good for you

 

[Spartanmack]

I'll spell out the point about "name calling" too, since you struggle with things like that: implying the filmmakers are dishonest & tell tall tales like Michael Moore (whatever) is name calling. Argue semantics all you want, but that's how I see it. You may have an ally in Red on this one, since he likes to argue semantics. We'll see if that urge overcomes his newfound liberal stance on the Koch Brothers & Buying Elections.

Asking if the presumption is that the film is entirely accurate and devoid of spin and worthy of a response from either the koch brothers or those who defend them is not name calling. Introducing the possibility that this could be a hit piece riddled with lies, like every Michael Moore film ever made is also not name calling - if you see it as such, that doesn't make it so. Speaking of name calling and changing the subject, I have no newfound or liberal stance on the koch brothers buying elections.

 

[Spartanmack]

Fine. Then say that. Not "As long as what they do is legal, it's not of my business or yours what they do with their money"

I don't really see much difference - if they ignore what they perceive to be an unfounded and scurrilous attack, they're basically saying it's none of your business, we're under no obligation to respond and we're not going to.

 

[turok]

I love those campaign ads from the former MI SOS Terri Lynn Land, who is running for US Senate and is being funded by Americans For Prosperity-Koch Brothers. They are "pumping" the building of the Keystone pipeline, claiming that it will create jobs in MI and help America achieve "energy independence"...uh yeah right!

 

[Michchamp]

It's not newfound liberalism. I just don't like concentrated power and I don't really care if it's government, media, business, military, or religion. I don't think "power corrupts" is limited to one type of power or another.

ha. keep telling yourself that.

then you realize every time you disagree with some Republican/Rightwinger you get called a liberal.

and you get pissed.

You say "I'm not liberal, I just have a problem with XYZ."

And they call you a liberal... then a socialist... then a communist...

Each time you deny it. "Let's argue the specific matter at hand. This guy did X. It's WRONG. It's BAD... how does my political beliefs have anything to do with it?"

Each time they assert it again, adding slurs... bleeding heart... boy scout... do gooder... naive...

Finally, you get defiant: "Fine, FUCK YOU, I AM A LIBERAL, and I'LL KILL YOU. I'LL KILL ALL OF YOU."

you're almost there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're almost there.

Maybe I should have bolded the newfound part. I know I have some liberal positions. Anti-war, anti-capital punishment, I still think AA is justified (though I think it's also a bad thing to be eliminated as soon as justified), I think it's important to take care of the poor. But none of that is new.

 

[TheVictors]

No, they're not. But in this particular case where chump says "the burden is on them" to respond to some filmmaker they probably don't give a shit about, yeah I think it's entirely OK for them to remain silent in the face of what they probably regard is an unfounded, scurrilous attack.

And to borrow a chump tactic, until I hear these people whining about the 100s of millions of union dues spent on lobbyists, super pacs and backing political candidates, their complaints about the Kochs doing the same thing holds no water.

I think that has been stated by many posters, many times. And usually in the context that you did ...in reply to the corruption and influence on all sides of the aisle these days.

And really, 100s of millions in union dues vs billions in corporate donations ...it's all silly money that in the end, fucks the little guy.

Refer to my post very early in the thread -- in 2008 8/10 top contributors to BOTH campaigns were THE SAME! The only difference was that two law firms - each involved with TARP bailout proceedings, started with Bush - gave to different, respective parties.

 

[Michchamp]

Maybe I should have bolded the newfound part. I know I have some liberal positions. Anti-war, anti-capital punishment, I still think AA is justified (though I think it's also a bad thing to be eliminated as soon as justified), I think it's important to take care of the poor. But none of that is new.

Technically Republicans all hold those same positions (well, except for capital punishment and AA), it's just that they argue against them every chance they get.

It's rare to find someone who will admit they are pro-war, and want to completely screw over the poor and leave them to starve, in the streets or in debtor's prison.

 

[TheVictors]

I love those campaign ads from the former MI SOS Terri Lynn Land, who is running for US Senate and is being funded by Americans For Prosperity-Koch Brothers. They are "pumping" the building of the Keystone pipeline, claiming that it will create jobs in MI and help America achieve "energy independence"...uh yeah right!

I travel a lot for work and get to see the various "local" Ads that run during elections. It's almost comical how indistinguishable one Ad is from another, state to state and election to election. They are incredibly formulaic and shockingly uncreative given how many millions of dollars go into their production.

Doom and Gloom music to accompany unflattering black and white pics of Candidate A who is going to [Insert Assertion Here ...Insert Assertion 2 Here] ... Transition to Light, Happy music to accompany wonderfully flattering colorful picture of Candidate B with his/her All-American family walking in a meadow/beach/park/Main St USA ...here to solve all of the world's problems and almost certainly as a "Washington outsider."

It's actually a somewhat fun exercise to see -- spot the Ads when they begin and predict where they go. I mentioned a while ago on ESPNsucks how my brother would take a new story and predict the Fox Talking Points and be spot on so damn often.


Sadly, people are fairly stupid and until the People demonstrate otherwise, the Koch Bros and their ilk on all sides of politics will continue to dictate the narrative, despite the real and true issues facing the country.

And for the record, I didn't vote for Obama nor Romney in 2012.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Technically Republicans all hold those same positions, it's just that they argue against them every chance they get.

It's rare to find someone who will admit they are pro-war, and want to completely screw over the poor and leave them to starve, in the streets or in debtor's prison.

Good point. What I mean with those examples is that relative to the way things are currently, my views look liberal. Sure...ideally, the poor would be primarily taken care of through private charities, that's pretty conservative, but that's not what we have right now, so I'm in favor of the government doing every bit as much as they do, which puts me in the liberal camp sometimes.

 

[turok]

"It's rare to find someone who will admit they are pro-war, and want to completely screw over the poor and leave them to starve, in the streets or in debtor's prison."

Maybe IRL, but not behind the relative anonymity of the internet. I don't have a FB account so I can't post whether or not ppl who use their true IDs have done so. Same with Twitter since I don't try to spend time tracking down and following sociopath lunatics.

 

[tinselwolverine]

stupid pronouns.

Well, when I went back and read your post, the post you quoted and some posts just before them more carefully, yeah, it became fairly apparent that "he" more likely referred to Obama...

But I didn't read any of them that carefully the first time through because they were in the tired "you liberals never criticize Obama for anything;" "that's not true, it's you conservatives who never criticized Bush for anything;" "that's not true, it's you guys;" "no it's you guys" vein that fairly quickly make my eyes glaze over...

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, when I went back and read your post, the post you quoted and some posts just before them more carefully, yeah, it became fairly apparent that "he" more likely referred to Obama...

But I didn't read any of them that carefully the first time through because they were in the tired "you liberals never criticize Obama for anything;" "that's not true, it's you conservatives who never criticized Bush for anything;" "that's not true, it's you guys;" "no it's you guys" vein that fairly quickly make my eyes glaze over...

Ha - I thought about defending the pronoun in the context of the posts but after proofreading that attempt it seemed that you could interpret it with a prickish "that should have been obvious" tone so i just left it alone