Americans for prosperity back at it

[Gulo Blue]

See Red, I told you you were a lib....you're the only one who doesn't believe it now. :tup:

I know. Crazy. I need to go back in time and fix some votes I guess. Most of them actually.

 

[Monster]

Money in politics is bad regardless of the party.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'll take you at your word there but you have to admit, that makes you rare among those on the left (if in fact you are on the left).

Personally, I think the money=free speech is politics but I wasn't defending that either. And I forgot to include unions on that list - Soros, Steyer (he's relatively new to the game) , and unions.

Dude if you don't know that Gulo is the most non-partisan poster to this board, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[TheVictors]

Red ain't a Lefty any more than the Koch Brothers are mere "capitalists"
...
They are scumbags of the highest order and have profited off others like plantation owners did in the era of slavery.



They're fucking scumbags. Complete and total scumbags. I'd gladly say it to their face in the lobby of the Ritz Carlton Bachelor Gulch too. I am not afraid of lily white pussies like them.

 

[Spartanmack]

Dude, that's why I qualified the statement with "if in fact, you are on the left". If I had to guess I would say he is center-left but that's not the point. The point was about how hypocrites on the left start threads to whine about Koch money in politics but say nothing about the Soros, Steyer or union money in politics.

 

[Michchamp]

I'll take you at your word there but you have to admit, that makes you rare among those on the left (if in fact you are on the left).

Personally, I think the money=free speech is politics but I wasn't defending that either. And I forgot to include unions on that list - Soros, Steyer (he's relatively new to the game) , and unions.

there's a big difference between a rich guy giving money to causes that don't benefit him financially and what the Koch Bros. do.

how is Soros pushing marijuana legislation, giving the ACLU some cash, and funding "get out the vote" measures benefiting him financially? I know the Right loves to bash him, but it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and conspiracy theory stuff.

the Koch Bros. on the other hand benefit directly from gutting unions, gutting government oversight, opposing climate change restrictions, and so on.

 

[Spartanmack]

Right, so long as you agree with the motives AND you're on the same side of the issue, then it's perfectly OK to hijack the political process with huge amounts of money. How do you justify Harry Reid's defense of Sheldon Adelson - one of the most liberal politicains defending one of the most conservative activists and super PAC donors? Self preservation? That's so noble. And of course the Koch brothers are bad because they support causes they directly benefit from, unlike literally everyone else who ever cut a check. And they're the only ones who benefit from it and that benefit comes in the form of profits, which of course are evil. The left loves to use those excuses to justify their hypocrisy but it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Spartanmack]

Red ain't a Lefty any more than the Koch Brothers are mere "capitalists"
...
They are scumbags of the highest order and have profited off others like plantation owners did in the era of slavery.



They're fucking scumbags. Complete and total scumbags. I'd gladly say it to their face in the lobby of the Ritz Carlton Bachelor Gulch too. I am not afraid of lily white pussies like them.

You're ready to throw down with a 74 and 79 year old man - I didn't know you were such a badass...

 

[Gulo Blue]

So...is anybody in favor of big money donors in politics?

How about this specific case? Is anyone in favor of this effort to derail the Detroit bankruptcy settlement?

 

[Michchamp]

Right, so long as you agree with the motives AND you're on the same side of the issue, then it's perfectly OK to hijack the political process with huge amounts of money. How do you justify Harry Reid's defense of Sheldon Adelson - one of the most liberal politicains defending one of the most conservative activists and super PAC donors? Self preservation? That's so noble. And of course the Koch brothers are bad because they support causes they directly benefit from, unlike literally everyone else who ever cut a check. And they're the only ones who benefit from it and that benefit comes in the form of profits, which of course are evil. The left loves to use those excuses to justify their hypocrisy but it's a lot of smoke and mirrors and conspiracy theory stuff.

I'm not defending anything Harry Reid did. Yes, I would explain it as self-preservation, but it was certainly a sleazy compromise on Reid's part.

As for the bolded portion, that's exactly right. It's a perversion of the democratic process... the Koch's are just buying up politicians.

When George Soros gives $1,000,000 to NORML, he's not getting any benefit from it other than peace of mind, but the public at large benefits from the blow against the idiotic "War on Drugs." This is a direct contrast to what the Koch's do... giving money to further policies that fuck the public over but benefit their own bottom line.

If you can't see the difference here, you're either being dishonest or stupid, and probably both, as usual.

 

[Michchamp]

So...is anybody in favor of big money donors in politics?

How about this specific case? Is anyone in favor of this effort to derail the Detroit bankruptcy settlement?

I'm guessing the answer is "no" on both points, but the red herring of "liberal hypocrisy" will be used to avoid saying anything concrete that anyone can argue against.

 

[Michchamp]

two oil billionaires who inherited all of their money pumping 100m+ into elections this year, what's not to love about that?

appropos of this point... "11 Things the Koch Brothers Don't Want You to Know About them."

 

[Sbee]

Inherited all their money? The founder died in 1967 leaving the company to his 4 sons - two of whom in 1983 (16 years later) financed a buyout of the other 2 for $1.1B - assuming they all had equal shares and accounting for the fact that the 2 own 84% of the company, that means 16 years AFTER the death of the father the company was worth around $2.6B. Forbes pegs the value of the company today at $100B. Sure they were already rich but they are two of the most accomplished businessmen in the world.

getting richer by virtue of being obscenely rich to begin with is hardly impressive.

would you consider the saudi royal family to be some of the most accomplished businessmen in the world as well?

 

[Spartanmack]

So...is anybody in favor of big money donors in politics?

How about this specific case? Is anyone in favor of this effort to derail the Detroit bankruptcy settlement?

I don't personally know anyone in favor of big money in politics but I would say that if you take a position on one side or the other, you're taking a political stand. And I can't speak to the Detroit issue as I'm not familiar w/ the settlement or the attempts to derail it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't personally know anyone in favor of big money in politics but I would say that if you take a position on one side or the other, you're taking a political stand. And I can't speak to the Detroit issue as I'm not familiar w/ the settlement or the attempts to derail it.

I'm just trying to figure out why this discussion is where it is. Nobody is in favor of money in politics. You seem to not like the criticism of the Koch brothers because Soros exists. But Soros isn't involved in the Detroit settlement, which is what this thread is about.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm just trying to figure out why this discussion is where it is. Nobody is in favor of money in politics. You seem to not like the criticism of the Koch brothers because Soros exists. But Soros isn't involved in the Detroit settlement, which is what this thread is about.

see post #7.

I guess I'm to blame as well for replying to him on this point, instead of the Detroit bankruptcy, or AFP's involvement in it.

 

[Spartanmack]

getting richer by virtue of being obscenely rich to begin with is hardly impressive.

would you consider the saudi royal family to be some of the most accomplished businessmen in the world as well?

first, you don't know what their fortune was worth in 1967 but even if it was a billion dollar company, growing it to $100Bln is certainly impressive.

So the Koch brothers are the descendants of a tribal warlord who conquered a swath of land and claimed dominion over its resources? Nice false equivalence - you're the king of that stuff.

 

[Gulo Blue]

see post #7.

I guess I'm to blame as well for replying to him on this point, instead of the Detroit bankruptcy, or AFP's involvement in it.

I'm to blame too, maybe more than you, but man, we went off the track.

 

[Gulo Blue]

first, you don't know what their fortune was worth in 1967 but even if it was a billion dollar company, growing it to $100Bln is certainly impressive.

So the Koch brothers are the descendants of a tribal warlord who conquered a swath of land and claimed dominion over its resources? Nice false equivalence - you're the king of that stuff.

Go ahead and make the distinction. Sbee's example isn't an argument of equivalence. It just points out that you can't just point to wealth as an indicator of achievement. What have the Koch brothers done that's so great that we shouldn't criticize them for asserting their influence over the Detroit settlement?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm to blame too, maybe more than you, but man, we went off the track.

It's not that bad as far as derailed threads go I guess...