• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

"Your view, while interesting, is simply untrue. Nice try though."
Untrue = not in agreement with your world view.
In addition to being at odds with me you are at odds with history. It matters only a little to me.
 
Can you provide a few examples of far right wing Republicans? What makes them far right to you? Is it because they are highly successful and provide good, non-government jobs to tens of thousands of people?

This thread is about two of them, in case you didn't notice.

"...good, non-government jobs to tens of thousands of people". Well, the "good" part not so much, if you don't mind working for wages that are stuck in a time warp. And why? Because these highly successful people all want to make the Forbes 400 list before they die. So the screw the worker who makes it possible for them. Got it, yet?



Even adjusting for inflation, most Americans' wages haven't increased in over 10 years?
Even adjusting for inflation, most Americans' wages haven't increased in over 10 years? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Year and Weekly wages, 4th quarter of each year
1999
$335

2000
334

2001
340

2002
336

2003
337
2004
337

2005
332

2006
337

2007
332

2008
340

2009
344

2010
341

2011
335

2012
334

2013
334

So, the inflation-adjusted median wage during the final quarter of 2013 was $334 -- $1 lower than during the final quarter of 1999, more than a decade earlier."""
 
This thread is about two of them, in case you didn't notice.

"...good, non-government jobs to tens of thousands of people". Well, the "good" part not so much, if you don't mind working for wages that are stuck in a time warp. And why? Because these highly successful people all want to make the Forbes 400 list before they die. So the screw the worker who makes it possible for them. Got it, yet?

Even adjusting for inflation, most Americans' wages haven't increased in over 10 years?
Even adjusting for inflation, most Americans' wages haven't increased in over 10 years? | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Year and Weekly wages, 4th quarter of each year

...non-value-added drek deleted to save space.

So, the inflation-adjusted median wage during the final quarter of 2013 was $334 -- $1 lower than during the final quarter of 1999, more than a decade earlier."""

Yes, I should have made it clear that the "them" I was referring to were the two brothers in question. They employ tens of thousands of people. They are not responsible for the mess the federal government has made of our economy. So instead of your nonsense generalizations analyze what they have done. If you can.
 
You do have more speech if you're rich. The article describes how a few people will be spending a billion dollars next year speaking. I, nor most people, don't have that much speech.

Not according to the law. Everyone has the same freedom to spend as much or as little money as they wish to promote their political opinions. Equal under the law means they cant make a law that says you get more speech if you can afford it. There are no such laws.
 
OK, we're just engaged in an exercise of splitting hairs - what the definition of 'is' is debate. The bottom line is our property rights extend to the air we breathe, and for lots of practical reasons, that right is not absolute. Same as the rest of our rights - exceptions and infringements are allowed by law for all kinds of reasons.
:doh

No they do not and you are clearly speaking about that which you know not.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.





If nonsense is repeated often enough......

.....it's still nonsense.
Which is why he is continually corrected.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are (He is) speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.
 
:doh

No they do not and you are clearly speaking about that which you know not.

It's nice for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over and pretending that you're making anything resembling a persuasive point, but you're not.

If our property rights don't extend to the air we breathe, then why aren't you allowed to set up shop in the lot next to me and burn hazardous materials? On what basis can I sue you? IMO the landowner has property rights extending to the air he breathes and if you infringe on that right, he can sue for damages or to prevent you from infringing on his property rights to enjoy the use of his property without being poisoned by YOUR acts.

Alternatively, my neighbor can do as he wishes on his property, and there is nothing but a law that can prevent him from inflicting harm on me by poisoning the air I breath, killing my dogs, or cattle. If I want the burning to stop, I have to pay HIM.
 
It's nice for you to keep repeating the same thing over and over and pretending that you're making anything resembling a persuasive point, but you're not.
Your failure to understand you are wrong and why you are wrong is your problem. Not mine.
You are clearly speaking about that which you know not.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.


If our property rights don't extend to the air we breathe, then why aren't you allowed to set up shop in the lot next to me and burn hazardous materials? On what basis can I sue you? IMO the landowner has property rights extending to the air he breathes and if you infringe on that right, he can sue for damages or to prevent you from infringing on his property rights to enjoy the use of his property without being poisoned by YOUR acts.

Alternatively, my neighbor can do as he wishes on his property, and there is nothing but a law that can prevent him from inflicting harm on me by poisoning the air I breath, killing my dogs, or cattle. If I want the burning to stop, I have to pay HIM.
:doh
Holy ****!
You clearly do not know of what you speak.

The two underlined are not the same. Sorry you do not know that.
Nor is that the same argument that was made and has been refuted. It is sad that you do not understand that.

Pay attention.

Again.
No such "right" exists.

Again.
You are speaking to law. Not a "right".

Again.
No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.
 
Not according to the law. Everyone has the same freedom to spend as much or as little money as they wish to promote their political opinions. Equal under the law means they cant make a law that says you get more speech if you can afford it. There are no such laws.
It's not the "same freedom" if we have vastly different capacities.

That's like arguing that the handicapped have the "same freedom" to walk up that flight of stairs at the courthouse as the rest of the able-bodied population.
 
Your failure to understand you are wrong and why you are wrong is your problem. Not mine.
You are clearly speaking about that which you know not.

Sorry but yelling something really loud doesn't make it true. I don't care if you address the points or not, but why bother repeating the same non-answer?

Maybe this hair we are splitting is whether my right to be protected against your poisonous burning isn't a right emanating from my property but my person. If so, fine. Whatever. You could just say so and we'd have moved on long ago.

But you're asserting that my ability to prevent you from polluting the air I breath is contingent on a law prohibiting pollution is nonsense. Those laws simply reflect how society has codified my rights. If there was no statute specifically related to pollution on the books, I could still sue you for damages because your pollution interferes with my ability to enjoy the use of my property, or because I have an action against you based on my right not to be harmed by your acts. In either case, you have violated my RIGHTS, not just some law, which reflects those rights.

No such "right" to unpolluted air exists, nor could it as all air is naturally polluted to some extent.

Is this your point? OK, we don't have a right to "unpolluted" air, in large part because when the pollution is minimal, it's impossible for me to prove DAMAGES. But that's a straw man. You're just pointing out a limit on all rights. I have a right not to be physically assaulted by you. If you brush up against me while in the subway, there are no damages, and so I cannot exercise my right against "assault" and extend that right to ANY touching.
 
It's not the "same freedom" if we have vastly different capacities.

That's like arguing that the handicapped have the "same freedom" to walk up that flight of stairs at the courthouse as the rest of the able-bodied population.

No its not. Its like saying govt cant make a law which says only able bodied people can walk up that flight of stairs. The purpose of govt is not to ensure equal outcome, that everyone reaches the top of the stairs. Its to ensure you are free to try.
 
No its not. Its like saying govt cant make a law which says only able bodied people can walk up that flight of stairs. The purpose of govt is not to ensure equal outcome, that everyone reaches the top of the stairs. Its to ensure you are free to try.
The purpose of government is to promote equal opportunity. Giving one citizen many times the access to influence and speech isn't equal opportunity for competition of ideas.
 
The purpose of government is to promote equal opportunity. Giving one citizen many times the access to influence and speech isn't equal opportunity for competition of ideas.

Yes, 'Equal Opportunity' NOT 'Equal Outcome'
 
Yes, 'Equal Opportunity' NOT 'Equal Outcome'
Tell me about my "equal" opportunity at speaking compared to Koch's billion dollars worth of speaking power. We both know that neither the opportunity nor the outcome are truly equal.
 
Tell me about my "equal" opportunity at speaking compared to Koch's billion dollars worth of speaking power. We both know that neither the opportunity nor the outcome are truly equal.

So call the Koch Brothers and ask them to send you some of their money. What outcome do you think the Koch Brothers are getting from their investment? How many Koch Brother sponsored candidates actually won elections? was Obama supported by the Koch Brothers? How about your Representative?
 
So call the Koch Brothers and ask them to send you some of their money. What outcome do you think the Koch Brothers are getting from their investment? How many Koch Brother sponsored candidates actually won elections? was Obama supported by the Koch Brothers? How about your Representative?
Call me cynical, but most people spending a billion dollars on "pro business," "less regulation," "lower tax" candidates expects to see some long term return on their investments.
 
Call me cynical, but most people spending a billion dollars on "pro business," "less regulation," "lower tax" candidates expects to see some long term return on their investments.

Still waiting for an answer to the question, did the Koch Brother back Obama and your Representative? Don't recall how spending ones own money was deemed illegal. Your concern should be on the person who had their vote bought not an individual exercising their right to spend their money where they see fit.
 
Tell me about my "equal" opportunity at speaking compared to Koch's billion dollars worth of speaking power. We both know that neither the opportunity nor the outcome are truly equal.

You have every bit as much opportunity to influence things as much as they do. Maybe in different ways, maybe not. If you feel that money is your hold back, then I would say to you that is a limitation you place on yourself.
 
Call me cynical, but most people spending a billion dollars on "pro business," "less regulation," "lower tax" candidates expects to see some long term return on their investments.
The purchase of a congressman or two can pay big dividends, that's true. Investing nearly 900 B in the political market, rather than the stock market, is risky, but can pay off handsomely.


Call it venture capital.
 
Still waiting for an answer to the question, did the Koch Brother back Obama and your Representative? Don't recall how spending ones own money was deemed illegal. Your concern should be on the person who had their vote bought not an individual exercising their right to spend their money where they see fit.
I'm sure Issa has had support from the Kochs. Obama likely not.

Spending your money is illegal in many regards. It's illegal to buy slaves, it's illegal to buy a jury, it's illegal to buy rhinoceros horns. Buying elections should be in that same category.

You have every bit as much opportunity to influence things as much as they do. Maybe in different ways, maybe not. If you feel that money is your hold back, then I would say to you that is a limitation you place on yourself.

I do not have as much opportunity to influence an election as a billionaire. I don't have as much ability to own Disneyland as Walt Disney did. I don't have as much ability to be the first person to walk on the moon as Neil Armstrong. "Rights" and "opportunities" are vastly different words and in no way synonymous.
 
I'm sure Issa has had support from the Kochs. Obama likely not.

Spending your money is illegal in many regards. It's illegal to buy slaves, it's illegal to buy a jury, it's illegal to buy rhinoceros horns. Buying elections should be in that same category.



I do not have as much opportunity to influence an election as a billionaire. I don't have as much ability to own Disneyland as Walt Disney did. I don't have as much ability to be the first person to walk on the moon as Neil Armstrong. "Rights" and "opportunities" are vastly different words and in no way synonymous.

You have yet to prove that any election was bought by the Koch Brothers or anyone else. Are you this outraged over Soros and if so why don't you start a Soros thread?
 
You have yet to prove that any election was bought by the Koch Brothers or anyone else. Are you this outraged over Soros and if so why don't you start a Soros thread?
How would one prove that an election was bought?
 
I'm claiming that advertising works. I don't think that's an outrageous premise.

It may work but it isn't illegal and the bigger problem continues to be the votes being bought not the spending of ones own money to influence a particular vote. Bet you are after the gun manufacturers as well vs. the person pulling the trigger.
 
Back
Top Bottom