Canard DuJour
Veteran Member
And apparently one of them is kind to dogs and his mother. That probably makes the plutocracy they want OK.
You mean like Soros?
When you do a lot of things that harm many people and a few things, probably for PR, to help a few people, is the scale balanced?
If it wasn't for PR we wouldn't know about it.When you do a lot of things that harm many people and a few things, probably for PR, to help a few people, is the scale balanced?
Why would you assume these things are "for PR" when they are perfectly in line with their ideology.
If it wasn't for PR we wouldn't know about it.Why would you assume these things are "for PR" when they are perfectly in line with their ideology.
If it wasn't for PR we wouldn't know about it.
So any reporter who writes a story about it and any internet forum user who shares that story is on their payroll.
How does the reporter hear about it?If it wasn't for PR we wouldn't know about it.
So any reporter who writes a story about it and any internet forum user who shares that story is on their payroll.
The problem with the Koch brothers lies in their attempts to buy our entire political process
You mean like Soros?
You mean like Soros?
How is that a reply? How does that make the above claim invalid? What do you have other than "they support causes I agree with"?
I remember that being the case with people who were against the invasion of Iraq.If it wasn't for PR we wouldn't know about it.
So any reporter who writes a story about it and any internet forum user who shares that story is on their payroll.
No my argument is I don't trust the Koch brothers to do anything in the public's best interest. If they do something that appears to be for the public good I assume a possible counter motive or in the best case scenario they are simply doing it for PR.So is it your argument that the reason they fund legalizing marijuana is to keep it illegal, the reason they fund gay marriage is to keep it illegal, and the reason they fund against police militarization is to keep up police militarization?
How is that a reply? How does that make the above claim invalid? What do you have other than "they support causes I agree with"?
Looks like a classic case of the tu Koch fallacy.