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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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.
We really have no reason to despise and oppose the Koch Bros. Unless you drink water, or breathe.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
“less governement intervention” is code for “free me up to exploit poor people and indulge my racism”
Yeah, and there was a difference between Hitler, Goebbels and Mussolini. Just not a distinction.
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 ]