Why don't the conspiracy websites ever cover the Koch Brothers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
They chose what they want to cover. Why do they not chose to cover the Koch? Pure coincidence? Or preferential treatment?
Like I said are they for The New World Order ? Or are they Globalist ? Thats the only thing they consider a conspiracy . Influence peddling and crony capitalism doesnt seem to bother them .
 
I think that much of the allure of the conspiracy theories is that they can make uneducated people
feel like they are smarter than others. This usually keeps the conspiracy kind of shadowy.

The big problem with the Koch story as a conspiracy, is that--though there's enough financial power there
to keep documentaries about them off PBS--anyone with an internet connection can trace all
kinds of Koch money, designed to push the political center to the right.
Hell, the Daily Show featured easily verifiable Koch bad behavior just last night!
While there's undoubtedly unethical Koch behavior that we don't yet know about,
the massive amount of ugly behavior that is already well known undermines the conspiracy potential.
Yea the Daily Show is News ?
 
Like I said are they for The New World Order ? Or are they Globalist ? Thats the only thing they consider a conspiracy . Influence peddling and crony capitalism doesnt seem to bother them .

Surely the Kochs would have to be part of any global elite? $36 Billion each. Major players in politics. Is the NWO just letting them mess around?
 
I think that much of the allure of the conspiracy theories is that they can make uneducated people
feel like they are smarter than others. This usually keeps the conspiracy kind of shadowy.
That is a pretty uneducated statement .
 
Surely the Kochs would have to be part of any global elite? $36 Billion each. Major players in politics. Is the NWO just letting them mess around?
It depends on whether or not they want that . I havent seen anything that I know of . surely the opposition would have used that against them . being the tea party is against Globalism
 
These are known conspiracies related to the Koch brothers and their companies, so why do the conspiracy sites fail to make any mention of them other than to come to their defense, in much the same way you do.

Real conspiracies of the business/political type, that aren't actually out to kill or enslave people, just aren't what they are selling to their market - they sell sensationalism and doom. Business conspiracies are boring.
As Sarcastro says.

So why do you think they don't? The answer seems to be pretty obvious and it applies to your original question. It's not fantastical enough. A person swindling a guy out $50 on the street or a person donating lots of money to political groups isn't very interesting. Free masons flying airplanes that were reversed engineered from alien spacecrafts to spray chemicals in the stratosphere making the atmosphere more hospitable to the lizard people, that's interesting.
 
The article below covers some of the very real conspiracies that have been tied to the Koch Brothers companies.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Industries

From the above link....

The company states that it "owns a diverse group of companies involved in refining and chemicals; process and pollution control equipment and technologies; minerals; fertilizers; polymers and fibers;
Content from External Source
Should be hearing some CT's on them in the anti chemtrail/geo-engineering camps any time now, then? ;)
 
That is a pretty uneducated statement .
No that dynamic is observable and accurate - take an area people don't particularly know anything about so it's easy to claim things for which they don't understand it's either physically impossible or just totally implausible, then sell them a pulp sensationalist story that immediately gets their justice/outrage antennae all a-twitching, and you've created a response for which they'll want more of.
Hearing of an egregious injustice immediately puts them in the morally righteous category, a place we're all drawn to.
 
Yea the Daily Show is News ?
[...]

Where exactly did I say or imply that The Daily Show was "news" ?
(the point was that if someone can see Koch money manipulation "revealed" on Comedy Central, it ain't very secret, is it?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[...]

Where exactly did I say or imply that The Daily Show was "news" ?
(the point was that if someone can see Koch money manipulation "revealed" on Comedy Central, it ain't very secret, is it?)
well allthough I sometimes enjoy the show it does push more of a left agenda . Its also a fact that many young people do rely on it for news since CNN msNBC and alike seem more like the comedy network .
 
well allthough I sometimes enjoy the show it does push more of a left agenda . Its also a fact that many young people do rely on it for news since CNN msNBC and alike seem more like the comedy network .
Soooooooo…the question remains, where exactly did I say or imply that The Daily Show was "news" ?
 
Soooooooo…the question remains, where exactly did I say or imply that The Daily Show was "news" ?

The big problem with the Koch story as a conspiracy, is that--though there's enough financial power there
to keep documentaries about them off PBS--anyone with an internet connection can trace all
kinds of Koch money, designed to push the political center to the right.
Hell, the Daily Show featured easily verifiable Koch bad behavior just last night!
Content from External Source
as I said many young people get their news from the daily show . You quoted it as if it was fact did provided context or proof to what was sooooooooo verifiable . So if its a Comedy Show why would it be relevant or true ? My statement didnt say you thought it was news . http://www.cbsnews.com/news/young-get-news-from-comedy-central/
 
Surely the Kochs would have to be part of any global elite? $36 Billion each. Major players in politics. Is the NWO just letting them mess around?
The Koch brothers have gained publicity in recent years for their funding of right-wingthinktanks and political campaigns.[6] Some of their political activities have brought controversey from Greenpeace[7][8], women's rights groups[9] and the International Forum on Globalization.[10]
Content from External Source
I dont think they are globalist
 
Soros is the chosen anti-christ of the movement, and the Koch's are diametrically opposed to whatever he stands for, so they're on the same side ideologically to where Alex Jones' audience is coming from.
 
Soros is the chosen anti-christ of the movement, and the Koch's are diametrically opposed to whatever he stands for, so they're on the same side ideologically to where Alex Jones' audience is coming from.
Soros is a Globalist so of course hed be the antichrist to the conservative movement but dont see too much of him in conspiracies other than Beck . he almost crashed the Bank of England http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/george-soros-bank-of-england.asp . Not sure the Koch brothers are involved as much with other countries .

The 5 Most Feared Figures In Finance http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/feared-figures.asp
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then how do they fit into the NWO from a Alex Jones type perspective? Are they at war with it?
Well the list of things they are fighting for seem to line up with alex jones . Obamacare . global warming . Net Neutrality , Not sure about wall street reform which is a joke .
 
Well the list of things they are fighting for seem to line up with alex jones . Obamacare . global warming . Net Neutrality , Not sure about wall street reform which is a joke .

Yeah, but how does that work. Two of the richest and most powerful people in politics are against the NWO? It makes no sense at all.

How can there be a NWO conspiracy if the Kochs are against it? Doesn't their existence debunk the NWO? Or are they supposed to be just there to confuse people?
 
Well the list of things they are fighting for seem to line up with alex jones . Obamacare . global warming . Net Neutrality , Not sure about wall street reform which is a joke .
According to that graphic they are *against* net neutrality.
 
It has positively baffled me why people are against Net Neutrality unless they themselves are owners of an ISP. It's like equal protection under the law.
 
Okay, now I'm confused as to what 'Net Neutrality' actually means. I was under the impression it meant unregulated internet, pretty much as things are now. But that's apparently a plot to control the information on the internet?
"Network neutrality regulation is more than just another pesky law; it is a floodgate to government control of the Internet and the reduction of consumer choices."
But according to wiki..
"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

(quote and ext tags currently missing for some reason)
 
That is a pretty uneducated statement .
It's really not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-into-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
-Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England.
Content from External Source
 
It's really not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-into-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
-Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England.
Content from External Source
New York times ? psychology professor ? Please .
 
Okay, now I'm confused as to what 'Net Neutrality' actually means. I was under the impression it meant unregulated internet, pretty much as things are now. But that's apparently a plot to control the information on the internet?
"Network neutrality regulation is more than just another pesky law; it is a floodgate to government control of the Internet and the reduction of consumer choices."
But according to wiki..
"Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

(quote and ext tags currently missing for some reason)

The Kochs are against net neutrality because it's government regulation. They want a free market where your ISP could determine what speed your connection is to specific sites or services. Net neutrality is enforced neutrality, and hence counter to their free-market principles. It's like the EPA of the internet.
 
I'm yet to see any sources from you for your stance.
Sources on what ? Saying their arent gullible people anywhere in any group ? Maybe people buy into conspiracies because of the lack of trust ? Or maybe Ill bet a lot are just stoned on Pot and its just PARANOIA ?
 
The Kochs are against net neutrality because it's government regulation. They want a free market where your ISP could determine what speed your connection is to specific sites or services. Net neutrality is enforced neutrality, and hence counter to their free-market principles. It's like the EPA of the internet.
Jan 14, 2014 - Net Neutrality, as with so many leftist proposals, is Orwellian in name:... to weaken conservative dominance over talk radio and cable TV news.
Content from External Source
http://spectator.org/articles/57432/net-neutrality-neutered
 
Sources on what ? Saying their arent gullible people anywhere in any group ? Maybe people buy into conspiracies because of the lack of trust ? Or maybe Ill bet a lot are just stoned on Pot and its just PARANOIA ?
Let's recap:
No Party said: "I think that much of the allure of the conspiracy theories is that they can make uneducated people feel like they are smarter than others. This usually keeps the conspiracy kind of shadowy."
You said: "That is a pretty uneducated statement ."
I said: "No it isn't" and then provided you a quote from a Psych professor who studies conspiracies from a New York Times article saying that yes, people who get into conspiracy theories do like them because it makes them feel smart because they've figured out what the "sheep" haven't.
You: You just dismissed a psych professor who studies conspiracies and a major newspaper for no reason (the newspaper is really irrelevant. Dr. Swami is well respected in the behavioral science community and his papers on why people believe in conspiracies is frequently cited.)
I then said you haven't done anything to support your case. And you still haven't.

So balls in your court. I backed up No Party's and my assertion with an expert on the subject. You have done nothing. Please, show me something that supports your argument. Anything.
 
Mick - This seems to be a political thread. The OP specifically singled out politically active billionaires that are demonized by the left while ignoring the machinations of politically active billionaires that are demonized by the right. Telling people to avoid politics and stick to the topic is useless because the topic itself is a product of political bias.
 
Mick - This seems to be a political thread. The OP specifically singled out politically active billionaires that are demonized by the left while ignoring the machinations of politically active billionaires that are demonized by the right. Telling people to avoid politics and stick to the topic is useless because the topic itself is a product of political bias.

The question is why the Koch's seem to get a free pass from conspiracy sites.

The answer might involved politics, but that does not mean we have to argue the merits of any particular political position. Just note they exist, and the effect they might have on the question.

Other people might also get free passes elsewhere. That's irrelevant, unless your argument is that the CTs give the Kochs a free pass because PBS gives Soros a free pass?
 
Let's recap:
No Party said: "I think that much of the allure of the conspiracy theories is that they can make uneducated people feel like they are smarter than others. This usually keeps the conspiracy kind of shadowy."
You said: "That is a pretty uneducated statement ."
I said: "No it isn't" and then provided you a quote from a Psych professor who studies conspiracies from a New York Times article saying that yes, people who get into conspiracy theories do like them because it makes them feel smart because they've figured out what the "sheep" haven't.
You: You just dismissed a psych professor who studies conspiracies and a major newspaper for no reason (the newspaper is really irrelevant. Dr. Swami is well respected in the behavioral science community and his papers on why people believe in conspiracies is frequently cited.)
I then said you haven't done anything to support your case. And you still haven't.

So balls in your court. I backed up No Party's and my assertion with an expert on the subject. You have done nothing. Please, show me something that supports your argument. Anything.
and you wont either . Dr Swami and the NYT your not going to get a right winger to agree with such nonsense . So leave it at I have my opinion and you and others have theirs . Because we are way off Topic . BYE no further comment . If youd like to discuss further PM me .
 
The question is why the Koch's seem to get a free pass from conspiracy sites.

The answer might involved politics, but that does not mean we have to argue the merits of any particular political position. Just note they exist, and the effect they might have on the question.

Other people might also get free passes elsewhere. That's irrelevant, unless your argument is that the CTs give the Kochs a free pass because PBS gives Soros a free pass?
So does Soros get a pass . I agree It political and Bias as well .
 
So does Soros get a pass . I agree It political and Bias as well .

Like I said, it's irrelevant unless you think Jones is just being nice to Koch because he thinks PBS is nice to Soros.

The question is about the Kochs.
 
The question is why the Koch's seem to get a free pass from conspiracy sites.

The answer might involved politics, but that does not mean we have to argue the merits of any particular political position. Just note they exist, and the effect they might have on the question.

Other people might also get free passes elsewhere. That's irrelevant, unless your argument is that the CTs give the Kochs a free pass because PBS gives Soros a free pass?
It's impossible to argue the topic without getting into political territory and comparing and contrasting the treatment of other politically active billionaires. The whole topic seem to be phrased to lead to the demonization of the Koch brothers and it has veered in that direction quickly and repeatedly.
 
It's impossible to argue the topic without getting into political territory and comparing and contrasting the treatment of other politically active billionaires. The whole topic seem to be phrased to lead to the demonization of the Koch brothers and it has veered in that direction quickly and repeatedly.

Then veer it back. Why do you think the Koch's don't figure as part of the NWO that Alex Jones is suggesting? Purely politics?

I think it's an interesting logical inconsistency in the conspiracy theory. If there are segments of the elite that are against the NOW, then how do all the conspiracies work?

Are Bill Gate and the Koch's for or against the 9/11 controlled demolition? Are their diametrically opposed politics just for show, or is there a war going on for different versions of the elite? If there was a war, then who did 9/11?

Who's in charge here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top