PDA

View Full Version : How do we fight illuminati like this?


The Facts
08-25-2010, 06:23 AM
This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

IdahoMauleMan
08-25-2010, 06:35 AM
This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

So you're not so far behind the times and feel the indignation and need to 'fight' something. What the Koch brothers do with their family wealth has been known for many, many years and is hardly a secret.

Secondly, when you come up with a plan please come back on the Board and post so the rest of us can get some ideas about what to do about George Soros and ACORN.

Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.

Fear Itself
08-25-2010, 06:39 AM
Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.Not any more. Where have you been?

The Facts
08-25-2010, 06:56 AM
Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

So you're not so far behind the times and feel the indignation and need to 'fight' something. What the Koch brothers do with their family wealth has been known for many, many years and is hardly a secret.

Secondly, when you come up with a plan please come back on the Board and post so the rest of us can get some ideas about what to do about George Soros and ACORN.

Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.
Let me guess ... I should read Faux news instead. LOL

Yeah, I'm sure it's "no secret" that's why the article is titled "Covert" and why people are afraid to go on record about them, being "underground."

And George Soros is a patriot trying to IMPROVE america and make it better, not just trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.

This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.

Bricker
08-25-2010, 07:04 AM
Do the brothers use the 17/23 concurrence?

Kobal2
08-25-2010, 07:04 AM
OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

JRDelirious
08-25-2010, 07:06 AM
This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.

With all due respect, this progressive must point out that you cannot enforce that the thread is "for progressives". It's on "Great Debates", but also it will attract just simple opposition contradiction.

Bricker
08-25-2010, 07:40 AM
OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html)

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Kobal2
08-25-2010, 07:49 AM
OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html)

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs. He merely said "It's old news, besides your guy does it too". There was no defense of Soros or mention of patriotism at that point.

Yeah, I know, my post came after TheFacts's one which is ... yeah. I swear to Aïsha I had it typed sooner, I just went back and forth on whether I should suggest we setup a Fallacy Bingo in GD or not for a while, before figuring it wasn't that funny.
It just goes to show that snark's all about timing.

foolsguinea
08-25-2010, 08:05 AM
Actually, I hadn't thought of calling them Illuminati. That might help. Hey, are they in fact Bilderbergers?

Bricker
08-25-2010, 08:16 AM
Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs.

Well, I agree that IdahoMuleMan's post is not a shining example of persuasive debate either, but a charitable reader may discern a gleam of an actual rebuttal in it. It would have helped his case to more clearly identify his attack on equivocation (if, indeed, that is what he intended to do).

But as you say, snark has its own rules, and only rarely do they intersect with those of the rhetors.

tomndebb
08-25-2010, 08:20 AM
This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.Posters, (even Original Posters) do not control who will participate in threads.

Telling another poster to "sell. . . BS" is inappropriate in Great Debates.

This thread seems much more suited to The BBQ Pit than to Great Debates. I will give you an opportunity to post an actual thesis to debate. If one is not forthcoming, I will move the thread for you.


[/Moderating ]

IdahoMauleMan
08-25-2010, 08:30 AM
*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html)

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs. He merely said "It's old news, besides your guy does it too". There was no defense of Soros or mention of patriotism at that point.

Yeah, I know, my post came after TheFacts's one which is ... yeah. I swear to Aïsha I had it typed sooner, I just went back and forth on whether I should suggest we setup a Fallacy Bingo in GD or not for a while, before figuring it wasn't that funny.
It just goes to show that snark's all about timing.

Agreed. And well-played, sir. Very well played.

No, here was the point behind my snark....

1. I read something in the New Yorker that cast a libertarian in a poor light. Which is a tautalogical truism, of course. As Hendrik Hertzberg would confirm.

2. Shock and indignation follows. A call to action must be made, and immediately. This is an outrage.

3. Of course, what the Koch's due with their money has been known for decades.

[Snark #1 coming] So are you outraged only now, since you read it in the latest New Yorker? Millions of people have been aware of this for a long time. Why outrage only now?

Are your behaviors and mood controlled that much by a single publication? That implies if an editor, or a particular columnist, has an agenda to promote....and a particular time and place to promote it (say, just before an election or an important vote in Congress) they can easily pull your strings - and the strings of those like you - by printing something in a magazine. Even though it's already been known for a long time.

4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?

But let's leave that aside for now, since that's a deeper political discussion often covered in other threads.

5. [Snark #2 coming...] And yes, the Soros/ACORN comment was pretty much as you say. With a special little topper at the end, since ACORN's antics are often held up by more conservative elements as the Koch-equivalent bane of their existence. But unlike the Kochs, who are spending their own money, ACORN (until recently) had signficant funding from the public purse.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 08:31 AM
OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html)

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

You guys are both way off.

The OP isn't directly criticizing Koch Brothers, nor is IdahoMauleMan drawing that sort of comparison. So what resulted was damn lot of imputing. It seems the correct thing to do would have been to ASK the OP for clarification of his beliefs BEFORE assigning a pre-set to them.

The OP specifically says what they are doing isn't illegal, nor does he suggest it should be. The way I read it is that the OP finds this particular tactic highly effective--billionaires using their money to manipulate a grass roots conservative movement. With this in mind, he/she is curious to consider how the progressive movement might counter this. Should billionaire liberals dupe the gullible working class? Should they develop a propaganda machine in the form of a news organization? Or perhaps they should send the DOJ after political opponents, maybe use the special prosecutor.

In other words, lots to discuss without getting all bitchy.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 08:45 AM
4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?

The Koch brother's, as far as I understand*, are spending their own money to [successfully?] push a conservative/libertarian agenda. The end goal being to elect conservative/libertarian politicians who will enact conservative/libertarian policies.

Someone who doesn't want those policies would thus have to *fight* to prevent it, or as Palin would say, "Lock and load."

It shouldn't surprise you to hear that there is a portion of Americans that would prefer a progressive platform and are *fighting* to achieve that goal.

The question posed in the OP is thus: how does the liberal/progressive movement counteract this conservative/libertarian push?

To answer your rebuttal, killing ACORN required a guy pretending to be a journalist, fake some footage, dress up in a pimp costume, and steeling some underpants.

Essentially, after the last election some conservative/libertarians read an article in [insert conservative/libertarian publication] about how ACORN successfully got poor urban blacks to vote {for Obama}. This caused *outrage* and the question was asked, "how do we fight this." There answer was James O'Keefe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#ACORN_undercover_videos_controversy).

*I hadn't heard of them until now.

Illuminatiprimus
08-25-2010, 08:54 AM
I'd just like to point out that I had nothing to do with this.

Thanks. :)

elbows
08-25-2010, 09:21 AM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Bricker
08-25-2010, 09:47 AM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, "Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a Muslim?"

elucidator
08-25-2010, 10:04 AM
ACORN helped to empower the downtrodden. The Koch Brothers help those who do the trodding. Its not quite that simple, but close enough for rock and roll.

BrainGlutton
08-25-2010, 10:23 AM
This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

Wait, these billionaire brothers are RWs. Aren't the Illuminati LWs fnord? The originals were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Illuminati) (for their time).

Bryan Ekers
08-25-2010, 10:27 AM
Do the brothers use the 17/23 concurrence?

In the interest of precision, I believe you mean "correlation".



Anyway, the best response is awareness and education.

Oakminster
08-25-2010, 10:28 AM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

DanBlather
08-25-2010, 10:45 AM
4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?Except for the fags, of course, we need to prevent them from getting married. Oh, and women, can't let them have abortions. And must make sure that the drug companies are safe from people importing prescription drugs from Canada. And marijuana doesn't count as a personal freedom because it's just a bunch of hippies, and must make sure that we can't have sex on TV (violence is OK). Oh, and lets make sure that we continue to shift money from progressive states so conservative states so that the conservatives have leisure time to complain about the government. And make sure that the govt stays out of Medicare.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 10:46 AM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

No no, see, conservatives hate people, so it's okay to hate them.

The way Nazi's were bad, so it's okay to hate them.

Wait, but then, those people become the haters, so I guess it's okay to hate both groups.

How about it's okay to hate people that hate other people, but not okay to hate people that don' hate other people. Seems easy enough.

horhay_achoa
08-25-2010, 11:32 AM
4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?Except for the fags, of course, we need to prevent them from getting married. Oh, and women, can't let them have abortions. And must make sure that the drug companies are safe from people importing prescription drugs from Canada. And marijuana doesn't count as a personal freedom because it's just a bunch of hippies, and must make sure that we can't have sex on TV (violence is OK). Oh, and lets make sure that we continue to shift money from progressive states so conservative states so that the conservatives have leisure time to complain about the government. And make sure that the govt stays out of Medicare.

I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

elucidator
08-25-2010, 11:35 AM
A suggestion to the OP? That he petition the Luminous Ones to change the title of the thread, since its commonly assumed that "Illuminati" references are a clear indication of a "joke" thread?

John Mace
08-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Right wing illuminati problem? Who you gonna call? George Soros!

BrainGlutton
08-25-2010, 12:23 PM
Anyway, everybody knows what you need to fight Illuminati:

Dolphins!

Chronos
08-25-2010, 12:32 PM
I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs. Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country... How much of that do they support?

CurtC
08-25-2010, 12:33 PM
I need to get a current program - I thought that the Illuminati were progressives.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 12:33 PM
Anyway, everybody knows what you need to fight Illuminati:

Dolphins!

That's your answer to everything.

gonzomax
08-25-2010, 12:36 PM
Those Koch suckers have probably dumped 200 million into political campaigns the last few years. They are anti environmentalist due to the fact they are oilmen who have had lots of spills. They are Libertarians because a lack of rules and regulations would allow them to do whatever they want. They can convince other Libertarians that their motives are not self serving, taty they care about the direction of the country. It works. Libertarians are not the most logical of groups.

Algorithm
08-25-2010, 12:44 PM
I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

He was outlining things "progressives" feel the need to fight for. Who they are fighting to get those things was not part of the question nor part of the answer.

Damuri Ajashi
08-25-2010, 01:36 PM
Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.Not any more. Where have you been?

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch's (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the "I have mine, screw everyone else" sense of the word.

tomndebb
08-25-2010, 01:47 PM
A suggestion to the OP? That he petition the Luminous Ones to change the title of the thread, since its commonly assumed that "Illuminati" references are a clear indication of a "joke" thread?Are you suggesting I send this to the The Game Room forum instead of The BBQ Pit?

Bryan Ekers
08-25-2010, 01:56 PM
A suggestion to the OP? That he petition the Luminous Ones to change the title of the thread, since its commonly assumed that "Illuminati" references are a clear indication of a "joke" thread?Are you suggesting I send this to the The Game Room forum instead of The BBQ Pit?

Will we be playing the game where every question gets answered with another question?

Darth Panda
08-25-2010, 02:07 PM
Are you suggesting I send this to the The Game Room forum instead of The BBQ Pit?

Will we be playing the game where every question gets answered with another question?

Why shouldn't we?

Smeghead
08-25-2010, 02:15 PM
Will we be playing the game where every question gets answered with another question?

Why shouldn't we?

Who said we shouldn't?

Drunky Smurf
08-25-2010, 02:17 PM
The illuminati?

Damuri Ajashi
08-25-2010, 02:18 PM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

Its not opinions we should try to control, it is the deliberate dissemination of lies.

Damuri Ajashi
08-25-2010, 02:21 PM
I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs. Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country... How much of that do they support?

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 02:26 PM
Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

Its not opinions we should try to control, it is the deliberate dissemination of lies.

Ah dear boy, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and reality is just a commodity. One man's lie is another man's means to advertising revenue.

emacknight
08-25-2010, 02:27 PM
Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country... How much of that do they support?

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

Would it make them richer? No

Would it mean fewer poor people being disenfranchised from their vote [from being incarcerated]? Yes

Result: criminalize the hell out of it.

Kimmy_Gibbler
08-25-2010, 02:37 PM
Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it's like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can't read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

emacknight
08-25-2010, 03:20 PM
Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it's like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can't read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

They're all lies to encourage you to watch movies produced by Liberal Hollywood elitists, which I believe is still controlled by the Jews.

furt
08-25-2010, 03:34 PM
Not any more. Where have you been?

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch's (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the "I have mine, screw everyone else" sense of the word.Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

Claverhouse
08-25-2010, 04:00 PM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.


I quite agree. However this only goes to the effects of the problem, and not the problem itself, which is bad-thinking. Forcibly stopping people from communicating their thoughts to the gullible and innocent --- citizens easily led astray by racist or nazi or sexist or anti-modernist propaganda against their true better natures --- still leaves this faction with bad thoughts which, even if they tell no-one, poisons and endangers the nature of society.

The only answers are Education, firm rigorous education in permitted thought from two years and up, and continuous re-education throughout life to prevent lapses; and the utmost vigilance in rooting out evidence of illiberal thinking. Citizens should be regularly interrogated to confess any doubts or disagreements they might have with state ideology, and punished if any thinking fails to conform. Children should be enrolled to watch their relatives and denounce any failings. Garbage must be rifled through. Watchful cameras installed in every room. Censors should have the power to visit any time of the day or night to force people to justify their thoughts.

These are strong measures, but only thus can we be free.

JRDelirious
08-25-2010, 08:27 PM
Wait, these billionaire brothers are RWs. Aren't the Illuminati LWs fnord? The originals were (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Illuminati) (for their time).

We are not of the Left. We are not of the Right. We are in the Light of Above.

Mosier
08-25-2010, 08:31 PM
Whoa, billionaires are spending a bunch of money promoting libertarian political ideology? How surprising!

Nzinga, Seated
08-25-2010, 08:42 PM
I finally decided to look up the pronunciation of 'tu quoque'. I never used it in my so-called 'debates' with friends or husband because I didn't know how to say it. This thread got itchin' to use it on their asses again and I decided to finally look it up. Too-quoh-quee. I would have never thought that was the way to say it.

But yeah. All my illuminati peeps, throw your rings up.

GIGObuster
08-25-2010, 09:23 PM
So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

I'm not the OP but I first learned about Soros and his efforts to fund democratic movements inside the former Soviet world.

But looking at current differences, Soros is aware of the problems coming thanks to climate change and willing to use his money on the effort.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6951748.ece
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/cleantech-hits-the-jackpot-george-soros-to-invest-1-billion-in/19193275/

The Koches have been in the radar of climate researchers and bloggers for being.. well tools for their own well being, the well being of the world is not their worry.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/19/david-koch-proposition-23ab-32/
Much has been reported about how Texan oil companies Valero and Tesoro have been fighting to repeal the landmark clean energy climate change law, AB 32. The Wonk Room recently obtained a PowerPoint from Tesoro showing that the company made a pitch to oil companies, including BP, to join their effort known as Proposition 23.

But there is another powerful out-of-state fossil fuel interest trying to eviscerate California’s pioneering climate change law: Koch Industries. The Wonk Room has learned that Koch Industries is funding the lead “grassroots” group organizing support for Proposition 23, and is also funding the Pacific Research Institute, the main think-tank producing junk studies smearing AB 32.

As ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room have detailed, Koch Industries is the largest funder of climate change denying and anti-environmental regulation fronts worldwide and its Americans for Prosperity Foundation is responsible for helping to create the so-called Tea Party movement. While the Koch brothers at the helm of Koch Industries are committed right-wing ideologues, their financing of front groups helps boost the profits of their conglomerate. Koch Industries contributes heavily to carbon pollution through their asphalt, timber, and oil refinery subsidiaries, and the University of Massachusetts lists Koch as the the 10th worst air polluter in America.

In its corporate newsletter, Koch Industries explicitly states that the low carbon fuel standard California is set to adopt to comply with AB 32 carbon emissions regulations would harm its bottom line because Koch imports mostly high-carbon crude oil from Canada. Another Koch newsletter warns that its Pine Bend Refinery in Minnesota specializing in high-carbon Canadian crude would become much less profitable for Koch if low fuel standards mirroring AB 32 are adopted around the country.

In an attempt to kill AB 32 and squash the likelihood that similar laws spread nationwide, Americans for Prosperity California — a front group founded and funded by Koch Industries executive David Koch — has been organizing Tea Party rallies with Prop 23 proponent Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda), bringing Tea Party support to AB 32 repeal hearings, and producing videos calling on Californians to pass Prop 23.

The Facts
08-25-2010, 09:38 PM
Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, "Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a Muslim?"If they are on TV or other position of influence? Yes.

gonzomax
08-25-2010, 09:48 PM
Whoa, billionaires are spending a bunch of money promoting libertarian political ideology? How surprising!

They are entitled to profess even as stupid an ideology as Libertarianism. But when they claim they are not Libertarians, it is different. They claim to be main line type businessmen. Only interested in the welfare of the country. It is BS. They use names for the funding organizations that sound so harmless. They should stand up and admit what they are ,instead of hiding under bland names for shadow Libertarian organizations.

The Facts
08-25-2010, 09:58 PM
So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.Ready? Go slow now ...

Soros wants what's good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don't give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good ... evil. See the difference?

GIGObuster
08-25-2010, 10:27 PM
He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch's (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the "I have mine, screw everyone else" sense of the word.Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

Must be lesser known Libertarians because guys like Rand Paul are not really following most of the items you mentioned.

I'm not sure what is the situation now that Rand won the Republican primary in Kentucky, Does the Libertarian party and Koch continue to avoid giving open support to Rand or do libertarians there are showing more support for him?

IdahoMauleMan
08-25-2010, 10:35 PM
Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it's like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can't read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

I love the New Yorker. We'll at least some parts of it.

The fiction is perfect airport reading, the cartoons and the cartoon contest at the end are without peer anywhere, and I like James Suriowecki's (sp?) columns.

The movie reviews are also snappy and fun to read. I agree.

Hendrik Hertzberg's columns make Paul Krugman look like a balanced moderate, however. And when they want to get on a political soapbox via a longer article (like the one being discussed in this thread) its a slam-dunk as to what part of the political spectrum it will eminate from.

And I just ended a sentence in a preposition. Which they would never do.

Oakminster
08-25-2010, 10:58 PM
Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, "Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a Muslim?"If they are on TV or other position of influence? Yes.

Please cite controlling legal authority in the United States for that position.

Hint: You can't. It doesn't exist, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Kobal2
08-25-2010, 11:35 PM
Please cite controlling legal authority in the United States for that position.

Hint: You can't. It doesn't exist, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Yet the FCC can silence or at least fine someone for saying "fuck" on air.

Captain Amazing
08-26-2010, 02:22 AM
So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.Ready? Go slow now ...

Soros wants what's good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don't give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good ... evil. See the difference?

Well, I'm sure the Kochs believe the policies they advocate would benefit America. And Soros's enemies say that the groups and policies he funds are hurting the US. So I don't see that there's that much of a difference in what they're doing.

marshmallow
08-26-2010, 06:31 AM
I need to get a current program - I thought that the Illuminati were progressives.

I thought it was weird back in 2008 when Democratic party liberals started to call themselves progressives, a label not in common parlance AFAIK since the end of prohibition. What will they use when they're inevitably shamed out of the progressive label by the mean old right? Maybe Whigs?

The Facts
08-26-2010, 06:33 AM
If they are on TV or other position of influence? Yes.

Please cite controlling legal authority in the United States for that position.

Hint: You can't. It doesn't exist, because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Duh. That's the point of the thread. Given the law as it is now, how do we stop secretive oligarchs from controlling the country?

Since you seem to be a fan of oligarchs, no doubt you don't see a problem.

Hence my desire to only talk to the reality-based community.

tomndebb
08-26-2010, 06:46 AM
Duh. That's the point of the thread. Given the law as it is now, how do we stop secretive oligarchs from controlling the country?

Since you seem to be a fan of oligarchs, no doubt you don't see a problem.

Hence my desire to only talk to the reality-based community.Ways of "stopping secretive oligarchs" was the point of the thread? Then, perhaps you should have stated that in the OP instead of waiting for an addition 59 posts.

As to accusing other posters of being "fans" of oligarchs and dismissing other posters as being not part of some imagined "reality-based community," you are out of line on two points:
nothing posted indicates "fanhood" as opposed to simply trying to discover what you are on about or that other posters are not based in reality;
insulting other posters is not permitted in Great Debates and doing so when your own thread is hanging by a thread is a good way to get it closed.

You may carry on, but you might wish to be a little more polite and a lot more clear on what you propose.

[ /Moderating ]

The Facts
08-26-2010, 06:47 AM
Ready? Go slow now ...

Soros wants what's good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don't give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good ... evil. See the difference?

Well, I'm sure the Kochs believe the policies they advocate would benefit America. And Soros's enemies say that the groups and policies he funds are hurting the US. So I don't see that there's that much of a difference in what they're doing.
They don't care about america, They care about their money.

I realize this is hard for you to grasp, if you share the Koch ideology and love of lucre, but some people with money genuinely care about other people - even ones who are poor and differently colored. That's George Soros.

The Kochs oppose progressive change to society. They are fat despots crushing people for profit.

The Facts
08-26-2010, 06:55 AM
Duh. That's the point of the thread. Given the law as it is now, how do we stop secretive oligarchs from controlling the country?

Since you seem to be a fan of oligarchs, no doubt you don't see a problem.

Hence my desire to only talk to the reality-based community.Ways of "stopping secretive oligarchs" was the point of the thread? Then, perhaps you should have stated that in the OP instead of waiting for an addition 59 posts.

As to accusing other posters of being "fans" of oligarchs and dismissing other posters as being not part of some imagined "reality-based community," you are out of line on two points:
nothing posted indicates "fanhood" as opposed to simply trying to discover what you are on about or that other posters are not based in reality;
insulting other posters is not permitted in Great Debates and doing so when your own thread is hanging by a thread is a good way to get it closed.

You may carry on, but you might wish to be a little more polite and a lot more clear on what you propose.

[ /Moderating ]Did you not see the title, and the question in the OP?

And I don't play the "be polite" came like the conservitards. That ones rigged, and they never play fair.

IdahoMauleMan
08-26-2010, 09:11 AM
Ready? Go slow now ...

Soros wants what's good for America and is using his money to help people.
The Kochs don't give a shit about America and hate people (or at least people unlike them.)

Simple enough for you? Good ... evil. See the difference?

Well, I'm sure the Kochs believe the policies they advocate would benefit America. And Soros's enemies say that the groups and policies he funds are hurting the US. So I don't see that there's that much of a difference in what they're doing.

As far as expending their own resources to say something and communicate a position, I agree.

The real issue is what they want government - who has the only legal means on use of force - to do. Because once the government decides to take your money, coerce you to do something, or outlaw your conduct of business with another party, you cannot negotiate that away.

The Kochs in general are advocates for less government intervention and more personal freedom.

Soros has had a number of different causes, but in general he is for *more* governmental involvement in our lives.

As stated above, that's why I find it humurous that someone who fashions themselves as a 'progressive' - whatever that means - is indignant and feels the need to 'fight' the Kochs.

GIGObuster
08-26-2010, 10:46 AM
As stated above, that's why I find it humurous that someone who fashions themselves as a 'progressive' - whatever that means - is indignant and feels the need to 'fight' the Kochs.
I have to say that the OP is falling into lalaland points, however there is a point that I can see has merit, check the ignored post #51 and tell me again if there is no need to 'fight" the Kochs.

Incidentally I do not see the need to censor them, as it has been a point of mine on many occasions, the best disinfectant is to shine a light on the people that are financing reckless inaction on things that will harm future generations.

elucidator
08-26-2010, 11:44 AM
We really have no reason to despise and oppose the Koch Bros. Unless you drink water, or breathe.

furt
08-26-2010, 12:05 PM
Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

Must be lesser known Libertarians because guys like Rand Paul are not really following most of the items you mentioned.

I'm not sure what is the situation now that Rand won the Republican primary in Kentucky, Does the Libertarian party and Koch continue to avoid giving open support to Rand or do libertarians there are showing more support for him?The Kochs are supporters of the Libertarian Party. One of them ran for vice-president on the ticket. There ARE no well-known capital-L Libertarian politicians.

Ron Paul is a small-l libertarian, and he is most of those things (he breaks with libertarian principles on immigration, and he's about where most Democrats are w/r/t gay rights).

Rand Paul has made a point of distancing himself from the term and simply says he is a small-government conservative.

GIGObuster
08-26-2010, 01:09 PM
[The Kochs are supporters of the Libertarian Party. One of them ran for vice-president on the ticket. There ARE no well-known capital-L Libertarian politicians.

Ron Paul is a small-l libertarian, and he is most of those things (he breaks with libertarian principles on immigration, and he's about where most Democrats are w/r/t gay rights).

Rand Paul has made a point of distancing himself from the term and simply says he is a small-government conservative.

Well, I had to ask because AFAIK the libertarian party in Kentucky has decided not to run a candidate for the senate there as Rand Paul still has many libertarians supporting him (Rand is in the Republican ticket). Last I heard they were considering running a Libertarian candidate against him as his recent backpedaling for his recent statements has soured some Libertarians.

But if it is true that the libertarian party has no official candidate running there, it sounds to me then that the idea that most libertarians do not consider Rand Paul one of them is a silly one.

furt
08-26-2010, 02:10 PM
Well, I had to ask because AFAIK the libertarian party in Kentucky has decided not to run a candidate for the senate there as Rand Paul still has many libertarians supporting him (Rand is in the Republican ticket). Last I heard they were considering running a Libertarian candidate against him as his recent backpedaling for his recent statements has soured some Libertarians.

But if it is true that the libertarian party has no official candidate running there, it sounds to me then that the idea that most libertarians do not consider Rand Paul one of them is a silly one.Oh, yeah, they really love him.

In an effort to clear our good name, we make this public statement.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul. (http://www.lpky.org/node/243)
There aren't libertarian candidates in a lot of senate races. It's a very small party.


Of course ... I note neither the Communist Party nor the World Workers Party had an official candidate in the 2008 presidential race ... hmmm ... you don't think ...

GIGObuster
08-26-2010, 04:31 PM
Oh, yeah, they really love him.

In an effort to clear our good name, we make this public statement.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian. There are clear differences between the Libertarian Party, including the philosophy upon which is it based, and the philosophy and campaign rhetoric of Rand Paul. (http://www.lpky.org/node/243)
There aren't libertarian candidates in a lot of senate races. It's a very small party.


Of course ... I note neither the Communist Party nor the World Workers Party had an official candidate in the 2008 presidential race ... hmmm ... you don't think ...

Of course I said most...

But the point stands IMHO, if there was no chance of Rand Paul winning we could had seen an official Libertarian candidate and in fact they could had, IMO the idea now is not to offer a real libertarian choice as it could drain votes from a guy that a good chunk of libertarians are supporting just for pragmatic reasons.

furt
08-26-2010, 04:51 PM
Oh, yeah, they really love him.

There aren't libertarian candidates in a lot of senate races. It's a very small party.


Of course ... I note neither the Communist Party nor the World Workers Party had an official candidate in the 2008 presidential race ... hmmm ... you don't think ...

Of course I said most...

But the point stands IMHO, if there was no chance of Rand Paul winning we could had seen an official Libertarian candidate and in fact they could had, IMO the idea now is not to offer a real libertarian choice as it could drain votes from a guy that a good chunk of libertarians are supporting just for pragmatic reasons.So libertarians only run in non-close races? (looks it up) Nope, that's not true at all. They're on the ballot in Illinois, Missouri and Florida, all competitive races. In Florida, they're taking votes from Tea Party favorite Rubio ... They're also off the ballot in several blowout states.


Sorry, didn't mean to be all fact-based. As the OP made clear, this was not that kind of thread.

GIGObuster
08-26-2010, 06:18 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to be all fact-based. As the OP made clear, this was not that kind of thread.
So why are they not ruining in Kentucky then?

The competitive thing you are talking about is not for the Libertarian, but for the Democrat or Republican, my point is that in this peculiar race a guy that came from the libertarian side is willing to say the "right" things to get elected. I have seen many libertarians still defending Rand Paul.

GIGObuster
08-26-2010, 06:26 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to be all fact-based. As the OP made clear, this was not that kind of thread.
So why are they not ruining in Kentucky then?

The competitive thing you are talking about is not for the Libertarian, but for the Democrat or Republican, my point is that in this peculiar race a guy that came from the libertarian side is willing to say the "right" things to get elected. I have seen several libertarians still defending Rand Paul. I would respect the Libertarian party more if they had bothered to put a candidate in the Kentucky race.


(I thought this was the edit screen still)

furt
08-26-2010, 06:52 PM
Sorry, didn't mean to be all fact-based. As the OP made clear, this was not that kind of thread.
So why are they not ruining in Kentucky then?

The competitive thing you are talking about is not for the Libertarian, but for the Democrat or Republican, my point is that in this peculiar race a guy that came from the libertarian side is willing to say the "right" things to get elected. I have seen several libertarians still defending Rand Paul. I would respect the Libertarian party more if they had bothered to put a candidate in the Kentucky race.


(I thought this was the edit screen still)Probably the same reason they don't have a candidate in hundreds of other races: they don't have anyone who wants to do it. It's a small party, and there are significant expenses of time and money involved in mounting even a nominal campaign. Often LP candidates pay a lot of that themselves. If nobody has $5,000 of their own cash they want to spend on getting 0.5% of the vote, nobody is on the ticket.

Also, there was at one time some hope that Rand Paul's positions would be closer to his father, who is ~80% "pure." By the time he actually started announcing his positions, and thus turning the LP off, there was little time left in the process.

I have no doubt that some small-l libertarians will vote for him; he's a small-government conservative, not some hardcore social warrior. But there are distinctions between "small-government conservative," "small-l libertarians" and "Libertarian Party."

The Facts
08-26-2010, 09:27 PM
Well, I'm sure the Kochs believe the policies they advocate would benefit America. And Soros's enemies say that the groups and policies he funds are hurting the US. So I don't see that there's that much of a difference in what they're doing.

As far as expending their own resources to say something and communicate a position, I agree.

The real issue is what they want government - who has the only legal means on use of force - to do. Because once the government decides to take your money, coerce you to do something, or outlaw your conduct of business with another party, you cannot negotiate that away.

The Kochs in general are advocates for less government intervention and more personal freedom.

Soros has had a number of different causes, but in general he is for *more* governmental involvement in our lives.

As stated above, that's why I find it humurous that someone who fashions themselves as a 'progressive' - whatever that means - is indignant and feels the need to 'fight' the Kochs."less governement intervention" is code for "free me up to exploit poor people and indulge my racism"

The Facts
08-26-2010, 09:29 PM
So why are they not ruining in Kentucky then?

The competitive thing you are talking about is not for the Libertarian, but for the Democrat or Republican, my point is that in this peculiar race a guy that came from the libertarian side is willing to say the "right" things to get elected. I have seen several libertarians still defending Rand Paul. I would respect the Libertarian party more if they had bothered to put a candidate in the Kentucky race.


(I thought this was the edit screen still)Probably the same reason they don't have a candidate in hundreds of other races: they don't have anyone who wants to do it. It's a small party, and there are significant expenses of time and money involved in mounting even a nominal campaign. Often LP candidates pay a lot of that themselves. If nobody has $5,000 of their own cash they want to spend on getting 0.5% of the vote, nobody is on the ticket.

Also, there was at one time some hope that Rand Paul's positions would be closer to his father, who is ~80% "pure." By the time he actually started announcing his positions, and thus turning the LP off, there was little time left in the process.

I have no doubt that some small-l libertarians will vote for him; he's a small-government conservative, not some hardcore social warrior. But there are distinctions between "small-government conservative," "small-l libertarians" and "Libertarian Party."Yeah, and there was a difference between Hitler, Goebbels and Mussolini. Just not a distinction.

tomndebb
08-26-2010, 09:32 PM
And I don't play the "be polite" came like the conservitards. In this forum, you will play the "be civil" game or you will leave. Posting name-calling in response to a Modertor telling you to behave is pretty much a guarantee that you will be Warned and your thread closed.

Do not do this again.

Beyond that, you are simply in error on a number of your statements. You are (rudely) accusing various posters of holding opinions that they do not actually hold, simply because they are noting that you imply a desire for censorship and that you have gotten a few of your facts wrong. An honest poster is liable to defend even a person with whom they disagree against a false charge and for you to assume that someone agrees with the Kochs simply because they disagree with the form of your attack is an invalid assumption.

Pay more attention to what is posted than to your prejudices and be a lot more civil. (This is not a suggestion.)


[ /Moderating ]