They are not in the minds of a few, but that is only when they ignore all the problems that the experts are telling us will happen for not controlling our emissions.
You can do a lot of things that appear to be good in the short run but very very bad in the long run. This tragedy of the commons also depends on the FUD that the paid minions are committed on doing and the levels of the damage they do depend in great part on the funding they get.
Just pointing out the two contrasting Koch defenses in this thread:
Anyone who tries to deny the problem is.
Just FYI, that is one of the more silly conspiracy theories out there. The PCL was never intended to be a public transportation system, the basic reason for its existence was to fuel land speculation in the period from 1900-1920, speculation from which the PE’s owner, Henry Huntington, profited immeasurably. It never earned a profit from passengers and ridership started declining during the 1920s, 30 years before the events of the above article.
Los Angeles was a city that took to the automobile like no other: in 1910, 1 out of every 7 vehicles registered in the US that year was in Los Angeles county, and by 1930 the number of personal vehicles eclipsed the number of households, making LA the first city in the world where that occurred. There is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain why the Red Line failed - it’s all right there in the ridership numbers, the P&L sheets, and the stated objectives of the executives who owned and ran the thing.
You can’t fool me. I saw the documentary.
No doubt. The destruction of Toontown is one of the greatest tragedies of 1988.
So, he’s a liar on top of everything else. These are not even YMMV matters, they’re lies. Now, this bit:
is perfectly true, but misleading; the “system” to blame for that is the current iteration of American capitalism, not of American government, except to the extent the latter serves the former.
Just because some guy writing an anti-Koch article speculated that the state would never fund it doesn’t mean anything to me. I’m surprised that even you consider that a factual cite.
For kicks, I looked up an anti-AMP website. Worth a look, for those with open minds, if such exist. Not because everything it says on that site is gospel - I’m sure it’s not - but because it brings up other aspects of the AMP project that these theoretical open-minded people might at least consider as possible reasons to oppose the project that go beyond the Evil Monster Koch Brothers. Mostly having to do with with short and long term disruptions in driving and parking for those not using the AMP, but also relating to use of funds. (FWIW, this cite says that the AMP proponents applied for state funds, although their being granted is unlikely.)
You have a cite saying the state voted money for Amp?
I’ve not claimed that.
What I said was that opposition was based in part on the possibility that the state would allocate funds for it.
*"Holly McCall, the spokesperson for Nashville MTA’s Amp project, told Think Progress that she had suspected AFP’s involvement in the process from the beginning, only to have it confirmed by a thank-you note issued last week.
“It’s pretty tough to find that kind of money – AFP gets funds from the Koch brothers, and they’re billionaires,” she said. “We continue to work our local campaign, and we’re probably going to make some tweaks to the design – we’re interested in compromise, because if we don’t, our entire future transit plan is going to be dictated by people who live out of state.” *
Maybe some “tweaks to the design” to avoid blocking two of three traffic lanes might actually be beneficial?
Actually, no, that would not be being fair. Seriously, if you cannot separate yourself from your ideology enough to see that Oakminster and IdiotGlutton do not post similarly at all, you’re most of a lost cause than I guessed. Again, ideology aside, IdiotGlutton owns the whole “Oh, look what I found! Here’s a cite. Discuss…” nonsense.
Oh, me! Oh, my! Joan Walsh’s response to that is out of the park!
If you actually go to the source material, there is very little to go on in terms of who was really pulling the stings in the legislature.
Not much meat to chew on there.
I get that you disagree with his opinions, but it’s simply not correct to call them lies. Their opinions, and ones that I completely agree with.
But it’s not something you can characterize as a “lie”, since it’s clearly the worldview of the man.
If you said that “Conservatives are ruining the country” I would disagree with you, but I wouldn’t call you a liar.
Can you not grasp that he and many others really do have beliefs about government that are different than yours?
So it’s fair to lump all the conservatives into one group and then point out any inconsistencies in that hivemind?
You realize that the liberals on this board do this in just about every single thread, right?
Plus you’ve got bullet #1 wrong. The only point made resembling this that I saw was that they Koch brothers probably don’t personally oversee every instance of interference that their funding supports. This is probably true, but not at all in conflict with your second bullet as you suggest.
Do we? One criticism (if such it be) sometimes leveled against me is that I’m too obsessed with taxonomies and nuances and identifying different kinds and categories of conservatives and liberals and studying how they disagree and conflict with their allies. It’s really a fascinating study, on both general sides of the spectrum.
And the conservatives on this board – and elsewhere, IMO – they just don’t do that very much, in fact they seem unable to discern any distinctions at all on the left side of the spectrum, as if they were viewing it through the wrong end of a telescope. Can’t tell Keynes from Stalin.
What I get from this, is that Koch is in favor of promoting individual rights over collective rights, and since he’s got the money he’s the lucky individual who gets those rights.
Yes. Not that I blame you for it. It’s natural, since as we both know there are a lot more buckets of political belief than “liberal” and “conservative”.
The most notable occurrences of this is when we have discussions about the overwhelming liberal makeup of the SDMB. The responses humorously bounce back and forth between “the board isn’t left leaning at all” and “of course it’s left leaning, since we’re fighting ignorance”.
Maybe some conservatives do this. But you do the same thing with your political typologies. You just break everyone into a half dozen groups instead of two. Reality is more complicated even than that.
For example: I, as a fiscally conservative atheist who votes Republican but is registered independent, don’t fit into any of your buckets.
Bucket would be too big. Thimble, maybe. One of those sealed plastic containers they use for stool samples.