J
Joe
Guest
Radical in who s mind ? If they haven't committed violence how are they radical ?
Why don't the conspiracy websites ever cover the Koch Brothers?
- Thread starter Critical Thinker
- Start date
- Status
J
Joe
Guest
again democratic talking points that iv heard already . lts whats in the executive order not how many . How many times did Bush change a law passed by congress during his administration for political purposes ? Quit blaming Bush he is gone
S
Solastalgia
Guest
Joe said:
Enh, wrong.
Study confirms Tea Party Was Created by Big Tobacco and Billionaire Koch Brothers
Final Proof the The Tea Party was Founded As a Bogus AstroTurf Movement
Joe said:
You don't have to be a leftist to be against the Kochs. All you have to be is anti-racist when it comes to segregation policy that they've pushed in North Carolina, or the civil rights repeals that Fred Koch advocated.
Joe said:
What shows how little I know? I'm afraid it is you who is ignorant on this issue, and blinded by your bias as a tea party member that supports the Kochs.
Joe said:
Occupy wasn't created by unions. It was created by an anti-consumerist magazine from Canada called Adbusters.
I'm not pro-Occupy, by the way. I've criticized them since their beginnings.
Joe said:
John Birch wasn't a congressman.
& Please put some structure to your sentences. Take a deep breath before you type. Your writing is very discombobulated.
Joe said:
Radical doesn't necessarily mean violent. In the political sense, radicals are simply those that are trying to change the fundamental structures of society to their political perspective.
Joe said:
Radical islam is more comparable to the religious right of america. Not the radical left.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
oh dear.
And yes Joe, this is a real problem with your communication, it seems like you're just spitting out emotional opinions, if you slow down and give a bit more background to your statements you might get your view-point through a little better. Your goal should be clear communication of actual information that might change peoples minds, over rapid non-sequiturs that sound like placards or chants at a rally.
This group has known influence over specific political organisations and movements especially with regard to climate science - why do people who usually concern themselves with what groups fund what other groups not consider it equally as of interest?
You seem to think it's all been made up by what you call leftists, can you make a (calm, step-by-step) case to prove this?
Jason
Senior Member
Obviously you didn't read what I wrote, because if you did I also stated Clinton's even higher number of executive orders, who was a democrat, and FDR who had the most of any president, even if you add them all together, who also was a democrat. I'm not stating Democratic talking points. Have a nice read if you have some time: https://www.votetocracy.com/blog/79/understanding-executive-orders-and-the-powers-they-grant
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
I believe it was Time recently had an expose on the VAST network of Koch brothers' dark money that they use to set up organizations, that in turn set up more organizations behind a thick wall of untraceable donors. These groups which are often politically right, against climate change, and FOR massive electoral changes like voter ID are funded directly or indirectly by the Kochs AND deny any involvement with the Kochs. This isn't just a harp on them. They are indicative of the failure of Citizens United in allowing people like the Kochs to dump hundred of millions of dollars in campaigns to get the policies they want, the candidates they want, and in general the "America" they want. No other group of people have that pull except billionaire business men. That should stop, left or right, billionaires shouldn't buy elections.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
I'm conflicted in that I'm a fan of Penn and Teller's stance on the irrational, yet they advocate the Cato institute's (and by implication the Koch agenda) position when it comes to climate change.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn_and_Teller
Penn and Teller are fellows at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC. Penn Jillette is an H.L. Menkin Research Fellow and writes the "Final Word" column for Regulation Magazine. A profile of Penn on the Cato Institute's website describes it as a program that "looks to debunk junk science, scares and scams with reason and logic." [1] Cato has received financial support from the oil industry, tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry and Wal-Mart, as well as conservative foundations like the Koch Family Foundations and Scaife Foundations oil fortunes. See also Cato Institute.
...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller
Bullshit! tends to run into the most trouble whenever it wades into environmental issues, as the duo tends to take an anti-environmental stance, either by explicit denialism or implicitly by cherry-picking actual bullshit surrounding environmental issues and the gullible hippies who buy into it while failing to mention that the actual science itself is not bullshit. An example is the aformentioned "Environmental Hysteria," where they outright dismiss global warming, and use an expert witness for their position a writer from Cato, who (among other things) is a DDT denialist.
[edit] More on anthropogenic global warming
Penn claimed that there was not enough evidence to make a decision on climate change, saying "we don't know." In the "Environmental Hysteria" episode the pair present Bjorn Lomborg as a great "debunker" of environmental hysteria, but neglect to mention the fact that his work has been excoriated by numerous actual scientists such as E.O. Wilson and Stephen Schneider and not just hippies and eco-nuts.[3] Jerry Taylor of Cato is also trotted out to repeat some PRATTs like the mythical "global cooling" consensus of the 1970s and make up some figures about warming trends to conclude that future warming will be less than one degree Celsius.[4] A later episode, "Being Green," recycles some of their earlier bullshit, and adds in criticism of carbon offsets (which are often, but not always bullshit), commits the Argumentum ad Gorem, and pulls off the classic dihydrogen monoxide hoax.[5] The general "expert interview" format for these episodes consists of hippies vs. think tank hacks -- the fact that scientists are ignored should set off your own bullshit detector.
In later interviews, Penn stated that anthropogenic global warming was probably real, but claimed that he was talking about not knowing whether "the whole package" (i.e. the need for government intervention, presumably as opposed to a self-correcting market) was real.[6][7]
Bill
Senior Member.
Like I said before. You aren't going to be able to keep politics out of a topic like this. Shut it down and lets go back to topics that deal with facts rather than closely held opinions.
Bill
Senior Member.
Penn call himself an Anarchocapitalist and supports an Ayn Rand view of the world.Penn leans towards libertarianism. I think his main beef (as indicated at the end there) is with government intervention vs. a free market solution.
Anyway, now I'm getting off topic.
There no reason why it's impossible to keep the shouty politics out. If people try to keep on topic then things should be fine. If people can't control themselves, then they should not be posting.
S
Solastalgia
Guest
Mick West said:
I agree that the detailed political arguments are unnecessary, and I wish they could have been avoided. But political ideology has everything to do with the issue this thread is about: why the Kochs aren't covered in conspiracy media. The answer to that question - as mentioned a few times before - seems to be that there is a convergence and even alliance in political ideology (ie. JBS and InfoWars).
Yes. But the rights and wrongs of various political ideologies and economic theories are not the topic. We can agree that there are differences of opinion that are behind some of the biases without having to discuss if those opinions are correct. Like you can talk about the Koch's dislike of socialism as a factor here, without discussing the pros and cons of socialism.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Part of the problem is that the Kochs have utilized what could be called vertical integration in politics. They fund "grassroots" organizations to carry their message, the politicians who will amplify that message and carry it out, the "think" tanks that back up their policies, and hosts of organizations in the middle facilitating the dissemination of their core political ideology. Again this isn't specific to the Kochs, they are just the best and most prominent example. No pair of people should have that much influence on the direction of American democracy.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
My issue Pete is more that they seem ashamed of their position even though they tend to fund it extravagantly through many proxies.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Yes and no. It is more like someone who is against gay rights, funds anti-gay rights initiatives, but when you call them out on that they deny it or try to sue you into the ground for uncovering their homophobia. Absolutely not saying the Kochs are anti-gay, but it is an analogy. They frequently try to have a one way permeable membrane for their ideas. They go out, but they don't get traced back to them. Sorry if I'm not being more clear on this.
Critical Thinker
Senior Member.
Alex Jones Paid By The Koch Brothers?!
Sam Seder
Published on Oct 9, 2013
When Alex Jones receives a call from a listener asking him about the Koch Brothers, his response is pretty interesting! He calls the Koch Brothers "apolitical" and says they're not all that big of a deal. Hmmm.....
This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at http://Majority.FM
Last edited:
J
Joe
Guest
Harry Reid obsession with the Koch bros . is Metabunk paid by Harry Reid ?
Jason
Senior Member
Doesn't discussing this topic on this forum give credence to those who wish to create CT theories about the Koch Brothers. In fact, if you do a simple search on google about "koch brother ct's" metabunk.com pops up as the first choice with the title "Why don't CT sites cover the Koch Brothers". So quite possible as result of this thread we could start to see Koch Brother CT's pop up now, which kind of defeats the purpose of this forum if you think about it. Sure the members of this forum find CT's to debunk them, but rarely does a debunking site iniate CT theories in which they later have to debunk.
And as far as why they aren't the topic of CTs, probably because we know exactly who they are and where they stand. Most CT sites spend most of their time trying to draw up conclusions about an individual, an event, or group based on tid bits of information. I don't think there is any confusion about who they are, where they come from, and what their purpose or goals are.
Lobster Johnson
Member
Ol' Jesse Ventura had a bit of a pop at them on the subject of the Keystone Pipeline via Facebook yesterday in a post at 20:30 GMT. He essentially said that people where being brainwashed by them if they believed the official story regarding employment opportunities.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Sure...but having Jesse on your side is a bit like having NAMBLA enthusiastically announce their support for your candidacy for governor of Kansas.
J
Joe
Guest
ONE: Reform Taxes & End Corporate Welfare
TWO: Don't Make Financial Promises Taxpayers Can't Keep
THREE: Be Stewards of Good, Transparent Government
FOUR: Empower Kids With the Best Education
FIVE: Free Entrepreneurs to Pursue the American Dream
Five for Florida http://americansforprosperity.org/5forflorida/ Influence for a better more prosperous America . No more Socialism
Critical Thinker
Senior Member.
Yeah, those are really wonderful sounding titles they use on their policy agenda and it makes them sound all warm and fuzzy, but the actual policies are not quite so beneficent.
Returning to the OP, why is it that the actual conspiring by the Koch brothers to hide their donations to front groups as well as their attempts to avoid campaign finance laws, get no press in the conspiracy promotion websites?
Two nonprofit groups connected with the billionaire Koch brothers are part of a $16 million settlement with the state of California for funneling money to political campaigns without properly disclosing their donors.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the state’s campaign finance regulator, Fair Political Practices Commission, reached a settlement that includes a combined $1 million fine for two Arizona-based organizations described by regulators as “part of the ‘Koch Brothers’ Network’ of dark money political nonprofit corporations.” The agreement also forces two California campaign committees to disgorge $15 million received without proper disclosure.
The Koch brothers front groups use all sorts of wonderful sounding names for their policy agenda, but that doesn't make them beneficent. It is telling that they try to hide their connection to many of the organizations funded by their 'dark money'.
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science
• How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups
Climate sceptic groups are mobilising against Obama’s efforts to act on climate change in his second term. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and theDonors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.
What does Greenpeace say about the Koch Brothers...
Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was "the biggest company you've never heard of." Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $67 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.
Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.
Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch have a vested interest in delaying climate action: they've made billions from their ownership and control of Koch Industries, an oil corporation that is the second largest privately-held company in America (which also happens to have an especially poor environmental record). It's timely that more people are now aware of Charles and David Koch and just what they're up to. A growing awareness of these oil billionaires' destructive agenda has led to increased scrutiny and resistance from people and organizations all over the United States.
We continue to expose the connections between climate denial front groups and the secretive billionaires who are funding their efforts.
Case Studies: How Does Koch Industries Influence the Climate Debate?
See our 2012 update Koch Brothers Exposed: Fueling Climate Denial and Privatizing Democracy, demonstrating how the Kochs are part of a 40-year old blueprint to dominate democracy. This update was relesed in conjunction with the release of Brave New Foundation's Koch Brothers Exposed movie.
From Greenpeace's Toxics campaign: Toxic Koch: Keeping Americans at Risk of a Poison Gas Disaster
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
