Charles Koch responds.

[braces_for_impact]

What has Obama ever done for the poor? What did Clinton do for the poor? Nothing. I don't really blame them though. The government can't make poor people rich. The only way to get rich through government is to make the right connections and bribe the right people. The best thing that ever happened to Clinton was when he lost control of Congress. With a Republican Congress he couldn't do anything. So he just got out of the way and the country prospered. He probably would have been an even better president if he had less time on the job and more time with Monica Lewinsky.

Unfortunately for the country, Obama keeps his penis in his pants so he has to find something to do while he's in the Oval Office, and what he does always turns out bad.

I thought we couldn't do worse than Bush, but Obama has disappointed me. I was expecting him to be bad, but he has vastly exceeded my expectations.

- - - Updated - - -



Koch did not say that he did not accept ethanol subsidies for his factories. He said he opposed the program. The program would not have gotten repealed by his refusing of the subsidies.

- - - Updated - - -



You asked who was intimidated by liberals (or collectivists as Koch calls them), and my very next point responded to that even before you asked the question. (I'm talking about the, now former, CEO of Mozilla in case you didn't get the reference).

And, of course, you responded with the typical character assassination.

- - - Updated - - -



Yet another attack on Koch's character rather than on the principles and arguments that he espouses. Almost every post on this thread has confirmed exactly what Koch claimed.

His ideology is a result of his character. I've never seen it otherwise.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I437 using Tapatalk

 

[Selsaral]

You asked who was intimidated by liberals (or collectivists as Koch calls them), and my very next point responded to that even before you asked the question. (I'm talking about the, now former, CEO of Mozilla in case you didn't get the reference).

And, of course, you responded with the typical character assassination.

His bigotry was called out and criticized. How was he intimidated? Did the police show up at his door? Koch talked of despotic rulers. This is just another example of hilarious exaggeration.

Speaking of character assassination, I see that you see no problem with Koch claiming that the Obama administration wants nothing more than to rule people's lives. That's just completely unhinged from reality. Hyperbolic insanity.

I didn't respond with typical character assassination. I properly pointed out the insane hyperbolic hypocrisy contained in the article.

Yet another attack on Koch's character rather than on the principles and arguments that he espouses. Almost every post on this thread has confirmed exactly what Koch claimed.

Pointing out that the article is filled with hyperbolic hypocrisy isn't a character assassination.

It sounds like you and Koch want to wax poetic about the liberty and justice of speaking your mind, and when other people criticize you, you collapse in a puddle.

 

[Earl IV]

...

NM

You're not worth my time




... anyone know where the ignore list is on this site?
edit: found it

 

[+or-1]

*snip*Koch did not say that he did not accept ethanol subsidies for his factories. He said he opposed the program. The program would not have gotten repealed by his refusing of the subsidies.

You miss the point. "Don't do as I do, do as I say." I find this a typical reaction among the allegedly right wing. "It's fine for me but you can't have any." When faced with a put up or shut up scenario regarding their integrity they can be counted upon to fail. ¯\(°_o)/¯

 

[The Paul]

There seems to be a trend of people on the right crying that they are victims whenever they are judged based on their own words or actions...

...sure, they get accused of some pretty nasty things, but only because they did them. That they actually did the things they're accused of seems to have no bearing on the sense of outrage and injustice that comes with being accused.

It's getting real Orwellian over there.

 

[Selsaral]

There seems to be a trend of people on the right crying that they are victims whenever they are judged based on their own words or actions...

...sure, they get accused of some pretty nasty things, but only because they did them. That they actually did the things they're accused of seems to have no bearing on the sense of outrage and injustice that comes with being accused.

It's getting real Orwellian over there.

Governor Christie only got popular with the Republicans when the press started investigating him. Rabble, rabble, rabble.

 

[boneyard bill]

His bigotry was called out and criticized. How was he intimidated? Did the police show up at his door? Koch talked of despotic rulers. This is just another example of hilarious exaggeration.

Speaking of character assassination, I see that you see no problem with Koch claiming that the Obama administration wants nothing more than to rule people's lives. That's just completely unhinged from reality. Hyperbolic insanity.

I didn't respond with typical character assassination. I properly pointed out the insane hyperbolic hypocrisy contained in the article.




Pointing out that the article is filled with hyperbolic hypocrisy isn't a character assassination.

It sounds like you and Koch want to wax poetic about the liberty and justice of speaking your mind, and when other people criticize you, you collapse in a puddle.

I suppose that might be true if the article were actually filled with hyperbolic hypocrisy, but it isn't. That's just the point. You have to infer that the Koch's are "bad people" to begin with in order to claim hypocrisy. And that is what liberals do constantly. They assume that they are "good people" and therefore anyone who opposes what they believe is automatically a bad person. As a result, a typical liberal response includes lots of insults and character assassinations.

The political debate in America today is overwhelming a debate about values. People on these boards ask why poor whites vote for Republicans which is obviously, in the view of most people here, not in their self-interest. Aside from the fact that (apart from their rhetoric) I don't see where Democrats have actually done much for poor people, the answer is because people vote their values over their interests.

Why do rich people vote for higher taxes. Whey do rich people who send their kids to private schools vote to raise taxes for public education? Why did Union soldiers vote overwhelming for Lincoln when McClelland would have negotiated an end to the Civil War and sent them all home? Because of their values which they think are ultimately more important than their own personal self-interest.

So go ahead and express your values but don't accuse others of being "mean-spirited" or "selfish," etc. After all, there are lots and lots of liberals out there who are doing the same thing the Koch brothers are on behalf of liberal causes. Unquestionably some of them are doing so because they expect to gain personally from the issues that they are promoting, but not all of them are.

 

[boneyard bill]

You miss the point. "Don't do as I do, do as I say." I find this a typical reaction among the allegedly right wing. "It's fine for me but you can't have any." When faced with a put up or shut up scenario regarding their integrity they can be counted upon to fail. ¯\(°_o)/¯

Then why don't you criticize Warren Buffet for the same thing? After all, Buffet complains that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary does. Well, there's nothing stopping him from paying more. So why doesn't he pony up?

If somebody doesn't believe that the government should run the post office are they disqualified from mailing a letter? The Koch's expect their managers to run their enterprises to maximize their profits just as Warren Buffet expects his accountants to calculate the cheapest taxes. Running a business is one thing, and advocating policy is quite another.

- - - Updated - - -

Governor Christie only got popular with the Republicans when the press started investigating him. Rabble, rabble, rabble.

Where do you get THAT idea? He was leading in the polls before the investigations began. Now he's typically running about fourth or fifth. A few more revelations will probably sink his candidacy altogether.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why don't you criticize Warren Buffet for the same thing? After all, Buffet complains that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary does. Well, there's nothing stopping him from paying more. So why doesn't he pony up?

No, Buffett complains that people like him pay a smaller share of income in taxes than his secretary. Koch wrote a self-serving whining complaint. It is unrealistic to expect people to ignore it. When Buffet writes a whining, self-serving complaint, I am sure many will criticize him.

 

[boneyard bill]

No, Buffett complains that people like him pay a smaller share of income in taxes than his secretary. Koch wrote a self-serving whining complaint. It is unrealistic to expect people to ignore it. When Buffet writes a whining, self-serving complaint, I am sure many will criticize him.

Sorry, but that isn't what Buffet said. He admitted to paying only about 15% of his income in taxes. And Koch has much to complain about precisely because people have attacked him personally rather than dealing with the issues that he has actually raised.

 

[laughing dog]

Sorry, but that isn't what Buffet said. He admitted to paying only about 15% of his income in taxes.

You are misinformed or worse. Buffet complained that people like him (which includes himself) pay a lower share of their incomes than his secretary.

And Koch has much to complain about precisely because people have attacked him personally rather than dealing with the issues that he has actually raised.

Koch funds attacks on lots of people, so his crocodile tears are not very convincing. People have addressed the issues he raised, but he'd rather focus on their alleged personal attacks. Do you think that is because he is a thin-skinned bully or because he cannot address their arguments?

 

[boneyard bill]

You are misinformed or worse. Buffet complained that people like him (which includes himself) pay a lower share of their incomes than his secretary.
Koch funds attacks on lots of people, so his crocodile tears are not very convincing. People have addressed the issues he raised, but he'd rather focus on their alleged personal attacks. Do you think that is because he is a thin-skinned bully or because he cannot address their arguments?

So now you admit that Buffet was talking about himself, and that he didn't pay much in taxes.

When have the Koch brothers attacked anybody? They've contributed to candidates and PACS that may use such tactics as they are common in election campaigns. But even then the personal attacks are much more common by liberal Democrats who are much more likely to attack their opponents as racists, anti-woman, anti-poor, etc. But when have the Koch brothers ever launched personal attacks? I don't think ever. Koch's op-ed is probably the closest they have ever come, but even there he is attacking the tactics and not naming the people who employ them.

 

[The Paul]

...But even then the personal attacks are much more common by liberal Democrats who are much more likely to attack their opponents as racists, anti-woman, anti-poor, etc...

Yeah, yeah, it would be great for you if you could convince us all that it's the Democrats fault that the Republicans are racists, anti-woman, anti-poor, etc, but it's just not going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.

 

[ksen]

And Koch has much to complain about precisely because people have attacked him personally rather than dealing with the issues that he has actually raised.

boo-fucking hoo

 

[Selsaral]

I suppose that might be true if the article were actually filled with hyperbolic hypocrisy, but it isn't. That's just the point. You have to infer that the Koch's are "bad people" to begin with in order to claim hypocrisy. And that is what liberals do constantly. They assume that they are "good people" and therefore anyone who opposes what they believe is automatically a bad person. As a result, a typical liberal response includes lots of insults and character assassinations.

The political debate in America today is overwhelming a debate about values. People on these boards ask why poor whites vote for Republicans which is obviously, in the view of most people here, not in their self-interest. Aside from the fact that (apart from their rhetoric) I don't see where Democrats have actually done much for poor people, the answer is because people vote their values over their interests.

Why do rich people vote for higher taxes. Whey do rich people who send their kids to private schools vote to raise taxes for public education? Why did Union soldiers vote overwhelming for Lincoln when McClelland would have negotiated an end to the Civil War and sent them all home? Because of their values which they think are ultimately more important than their own personal self-interest.

So go ahead and express your values but don't accuse others of being "mean-spirited" or "selfish," etc. After all, there are lots and lots of liberals out there who are doing the same thing the Koch brothers are on behalf of liberal causes. Unquestionably some of them are doing so because they expect to gain personally from the issues that they are promoting, but not all of them are.

I see that you simply ignore what I write in my posts. I didn't infer a damn thing. I read in Koch's article that you yourself posted that he spoke of Despotic rulers intimidating their opponents, and accused the Obama administration of thinking that people can't run their own lives and trying to run it for them. Two very specific examples in the article you posted, that I mentioned twice, and both times you completely ignored. You appear completely incapable of processing information on this topic. After two attempts that were completely ignored, I don't see the point in continuing here.

 

[laughing dog]

So now you admit that Buffet was talking about himself, and that he didn't pay much in taxes.

I never said otherwise. But for some reason, you seem incapable of viewing his comment in the context in which he made it. Buffet complained that people like him (which includes himself) pay a lower share of their incomes than his secretary was his example of unfairness in the current income tax structure.

When have the Koch brothers attacked anybody? They've contributed to candidates and PACS that may use such tactics as they are common in election campaigns.

You ask and answered your own question.

But even then the personal attacks are much more common by liberal Democrats who are much more likely to attack their opponents as racists, anti-woman, anti-poor, etc.

Do you have disinterested evidence to support this claim or is this just another example of your bias in action?

But when have the Koch brothers ever launched personal attacks? I don't think ever. Koch's op-ed is probably the closest they have ever come, but even there he is attacking the tactics and not naming the people who employ them.

I see. You drawn the fine line between direct personal attacks attributed to a specific source and passive aggressive jibes or direct attacks by others but funded by the Kochs. I cannot decide whether that is an example of irony or cognitive dissonance or double standards.

 

[+or-1]

Then why don't you criticize Warren Buffet for the same thing? After all, Buffet complains that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than his secretary does. Well, there's nothing stopping him from paying more. So why doesn't he pony up?

I do. You're right, why doesn't he?

If somebody doesn't believe that the government should run the post office are they disqualified from mailing a letter? The Koch's expect their managers to run their enterprises to maximize their profits just as Warren Buffet expects his accountants to calculate the cheapest taxes. Running a business is one thing, and advocating policy is quite another.

Nice straw man.

 

[ksen]

Is it really that difficult to see the difference between what Buffett is saying and what Koch is saying?

 

[braces_for_impact]

The difference between Koch and Buffet is one is supposed to be the subject of this thread, and the other was brought up to distract the topic of discussion.

And that is what liberals do constantly. They assume that they are "good people" and therefore anyone who opposes what they believe is automatically a bad person. As a result, a typical liberal response includes lots of insults and character assassinations.

What conservatives do is make sweeping, inaccurate statements about liberals that are merely projection. Then there's the weaker form of the same argument. "You guys are just as bad". We can tally up the sides here on the big bad guys that do character assassination, but with Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity alone you would win hands down, never mind just about all of AM radio. The cajones you display to try and even make such a hypocritical observation boggles the mind.

Was there a discussion to be had here or should we all just start throwing feces?

 

[arkirk]

If Koch were an honest man, he certainly has the resources to create a lot of jobs. He never seems to concern himself with that unless it is a pipeline to EXPORT TAR SANDS OIL and net him and his companies more than $100 billion. The man does not care about public welfare. He does however care that he gets his way and that his people run our government. He is a climate change denier and a very dangerous man. He is not a clown like the people he employs, but a ruthless liar in hard fought competition with other liars. He actually has a rather warm..er HOT agenda for you and me and him. That agenda is all too obvious. He has no real defense except to continue as he has been doing. He is not a man of the people.