http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286?mod=hp_opinion&mobile=y
Thoughts on his op-ed?
Good for him, particularly if the facts he list are true.
Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears and the low information tidal wave will win in the end…
Frankfurt won man… This is just a transitional moment, and our best hope is to make the transition longer, in the hopes our grandkids aren’t the first generation enslaved by the collective.
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens coming from elected officials, however this is Reid we are talking about, lol. Integrity and character aren’t even remotely possible…
Like expecting McCain to make a choice that benefits his constituents and not his lobbyists.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens coming from elected officials, however this is Reid we are talking about, lol. Integrity and character aren’t even remotely possible…
Like expecting McCain to make a choice that benefits his constituents and not his lobbyists. [/quote]
Lol. True on both counts.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Definitely. A giant incentive exists for people to try and use their fortunes to influence politicians. It’s why the left and the right fights so hard to get big money people on their side.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Nor can you change the game without playing it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]
Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)
So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Nor can you change the game without playing it. [/quote]
FTR…This is the position my post was reflecting.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Nor can you change the game without playing it. [/quote]
FTR…This is the position my post was reflecting.[/quote]
lol, dude, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to step on your post. I’m tired.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Nor can you change the game without playing it. [/quote]
FTR…This is the position my post was reflecting.[/quote]
lol, dude, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to step on your post. I’m tired. [/quote]
Oh no Beans…it mis-interpreted by another member and I was only clarifying the intent of my comment.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]
Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)
So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]
I don’t really think it’s that worthy of discussion. George Soros is attacked constantly by people as is Al Gore. If you step up to participate in the game as you guys say you’re going to get attacked.
Reid is a dumbass twit asshole, but these type of things happen in a hyper partisan environment where everyone hates everyone else. Koch can really whine and cry about people treating him unfairly with the level he is involved in the process. Just as Soros, Gore, etc. can’t either.
I don’t get attacked because my work with the Libertarian party went unnoticed by the powers that be. You can’t attempt to buy influence at the level that these gentlemen do and then claim people are attacking you left and right.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
He makes some good points, but it is hard to take him seriously. Just trying to keep the cronyism out of politics by spending millions of dollars trying to influence politicians. He spends quite a bit according to this article trying to hide where the money is coming from and who is responsible for it.
For a guy trying to tell us he isn’t trying to rig the system he sure spends a lot of money on the system. For a guy saying he is fighting cronyism he sure spends a lot of his money being a crony.
You don’t get a turn if you’re not in the game. [/quote]
Nor can you change the game without playing it. [/quote]
Is Koch really trying to change the game? Or just win it?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]
Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)
So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]
I don’t really think it’s that worthy of discussion. George Soros is attacked constantly by people as is Al Gore. If you step up to participate in the game as you guys say you’re going to get attacked.
[/quote]
Please enlighten me to a Senator who mentions and talks about Soros within, let’s say, 50% of the amount that Reid mentions Koch.
And this:
Is absolutely worth discussion if you or anyone is going to purport being active in politics makes private citizens eligible to be verbally attacked on the Senate floor.
I’m not so sure you or smh grasp the implications of your statements on this. So yeah, we should talk about it. Or choose not to, but to claim it isn’t worthy discussion is dangerous dismissal.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]
Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)
So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]
I don’t really think it’s that worthy of discussion. George Soros is attacked constantly by people as is Al Gore. If you step up to participate in the game as you guys say you’re going to get attacked.
[/quote]
Please enlighten me to a Senator who mentions and talks about Soros within, let’s say, 50% of the amount that Reid mentions Koch.
And this:
Is absolutely worth discussion if you or anyone is going to purport being active in politics makes private citizens eligible to be verbally attacked on the Senate floor.
I’m not so sure you or smh grasp the implications of your statements on this. So yeah, we should talk about it. Or choose not to, but to claim it isn’t worthy discussion is dangerous dismissal. [/quote]
Well I think you’re making some pretty intentional goal posts here man. If an elected official talking about a private citizen heavily involved in the politics of donation is “bad” then why aren’t you mentioning Ted Cruz talking about Soros. Or any Republican member bad mouthing him, Bloomberg, Gore. Politics is nasty, brutal, and not for the faint of heart. You can’t be a gigantic contributor to it like Koch and not expect to have the opposing team rub your nose a bit.
I would tell liberals defending Gore or Bloomberg the same thing. I have a hard time listening to Koch’s crocodile tears as he pumps massive amounts of money into people who are politically aligned with him. Did he really expect everyone to love him?
Is Charles Koch the first private citizen to be eviscerated on the Senate floor? Not hardly. Will he be the last? No. Is Reid right and his attacks need defended? Of course not. Like you’ve already mentioned this is playing the game. The game is disgusting and dirty and this massive infusion of money by private people on both sides is making it even more so. You can’t be a giant part of this and then complain when the team you are constantly attacking hits you back.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I do get irked by the constant slandering of private citizens [/quote]
Doesn’t matter which side they’re on, people who fund political campaigns are as fair game as are elected officials.
Now, slander is another story, and when anyone is lied about, wrong has been done. But people who buy political victories and candidates are public figures.[/quote]
Something like 2b came in in the 2012 cycle from individual donors giving less than $200. (Read it in today’s Journal, I could have figures wrong, I’ve gotten 9 hours sleep this week.)
So does the person who gave $35 for political donation become a target of political assassination on the Senate floor as well? Or is there a dollar limit on when an elected representative can defame you publicly?[/quote]
Maybe, in theory, to a commensurate extent (and, by the way, there have been a great many people whose small contributions have been the subject of scrutiny), but the greater the sum, the greater the political influence, the greater extent to which the person is a public figure.
$35 doesn’t get an official to pick up the phone when you call, which is what truly justifies public scrutiny. Obviously.
…12 more days, then you get to sleep!
No one will mention a small donor in a negative manner because a small donor buys no influence.
And yes best of luck on the finishing tax season alive beans! I got mine done a bit ago, but I only had myself and my fiance to worry about. Something tells me you have a bit more 
Interesting comments so far. And beans, I hope you get a special order of Spike or something to keep you awake chugging away at the math. I think my eyes would glaze over in about 10 minutes if I were you!
Vacation time as soon as the 15th roles around lol.
Anyway, to the article. I tend to agree with beans and bluecollar about the unfortunate inability to change any game without stepping into the fray in some way. But I certainly agree with H factor and smh that man if you’re throwing around that money you should not expect to avoid being attacked. That’s the price of the game and influence.
On the other hand though I get the feeling that Koch may not have been speaking so much about the political attack game which he certainly must expext as he was about people attacking his company or him as “damaging the fabric of society” or “ruining workers” or “hurting the economy” or whatever you have. He points towards this a couple times in the article imo.
Also posting this here because it’s related and could start another new thread entirely…but I’m too lazy. NYTimes reports restrictions on the dollar amount of individuals lifted by SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap - The New York Times
hooo boy. Election cycle rollercoaster drop in 3…2…1…