• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Tea Party Fights Freedom

S

SiempreTuna

Android Expert
The oligarchs behind the Tea Party, the Koch brothers (#s 5 and 6 on the global rich list), are at it again: this time they're spending their money to fight AGAINST consumer choice, business competition and autonomy for individual Americans and FOR additional NEW taxes.

Why?

To protect their profits, of course. The only reason they have for everything they do :rolleyes:

They have successfully bribed - sorry, lobbied - the Oklahoma governor to TAX people who install solar panels and wind turbines in their homes. Why? To compensate power companies for the lost revenue :eek:

Expect this insanity to come to your state soon: in the good ol' US of A, nothing can be allowed to affect the Koch brothers' profits.
 
"Charles and David Koch are waging a war against anything that protects the environment. Now I know that sounds absurd, but it's true," he said. "These two billionaire oil barons are actively campaigning now, spending tons of money against anything that seeks to curb pollution, limit our dependence on fossil fuels or lower our energy costs for working families."
Click to expand...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
 
The Koch brothers are private citizens, do you have a problem with a private citizen exercising a primary right? Seriously. Get a life. Get out of the cooler.
 
Let's put it another way: do you have a problem with attention being drawn to the lobbying activities of private citizens?

A society where wealth allows you to disproportionately influence the law is called an oligarchy. So the unrestricted right of the rich and powerful to do what they want, including using their wealth freely to influence lawmakers in their own interests, is a threat to democracy. All western societies recognise this and have laws to limit it, with varying degrees of success. But for that to work at all people need to know that it's happening. So even if you think there's nothing wrong with this I don't see why you should object to attention being drawn to it.
 
No, I do not. They are exercising a right guaranteed under our constitution. I support the constitution.

Do you want your contributions publicized? If not, why not. You have no problem with their right being limited and thrown out in the light.
 
Benjie said:
No, I do not. They are exercising a right guaranteed under our constitution.
Click to expand...

Even when they use that right to effectively deny the vast majority of the population their RIGHT to democracy? A right I guess is probably also mentioned somewhere in the constitution.

The issue here is the usual one of conflicting rights. A balance needs to be achieved, unfortunately the recent Supreme Court rulings have completely overturned this balance - incidentally, not my opinion, but that of over three quarters of Americans.

Benjie said:
Do you want your contributions publicized? If not, why not. You have no problem with their right being limited and thrown out in the light.
Click to expand...

Err .. if they're invoking Free Speech as the right that supports their right to bribe - sorry, lobby (same thing, different words) - then, surely BY DEFINITION it has to be public. If it's done in private, then where's the free speech?
 
Your statement is rather interesting. Do you pay attention? So if a conservative does it, destroy them. Look at the democrat party fund resources, super PACS, "unknown contributors, " dead voters. You are so one sided.
 
lets not forget unions who are one of the bigest "bribers" in the nation

having said that no I dont think them lobbying, regardless of the sums involved, trumps anyones right to democracy

its not a matter of X can afford to lobby politicians and Y cannot therefore Y is getting screwed by X

its a matter of politicians without integrity (from all sides)

the politicians who vote according to dollars are the ones denying Y democracy...... not the dollars

if your politician votes for whomever throws the most money their way then maybe its you who are the real problem...... stop voting for a caricature of an animal and vote for someone with integrity instead
 
Then definitely do not forget to look over your left shoulder also. Here in Hawaii, every democrat acknowledges the union, the teachers, the workers.
 
Benjie said:
Your statement is rather interesting. Do you pay attention? So if a conservative does it, destroy them. Look at the democrat party fund resources, super PACS, "unknown contributors, " dead voters. You are so one sided.
Click to expand...

Err .. sorry?

Where did I say that any of this was OK when it's pro-Democrat? It's not: in a representative democracy, politicians are duty bound to promote the interest of their electorate, not the whims of a super rich elite.

Unfortunately, as illustrated by the recent Princeton study, that is precisely what the US goverment has increasingly been doing: prioritising the interests of the rich over those of the bulk of the population. And that's before the recent Supreme Court rulings.

The Princeton study suggests that both parties are guilty here, though obviously as an avowedly pro-rich party, the GOP is somewhat worse. As you would expect.

Re bribery/lobbying affecting democractic rights, I'm afraid opinion is not really relevant here as we actually have the facts in the Princeton study which shows - unequivocally - that not only does bribery/lobbying trump democratic rights, it's doing it more and more effectively over time. Again: that's without the recent Supreme Court rulings which can only serve to accelerate the trend.

Unions do figure in this argument, however the issue with unions is not that their influence is too big, but that it has become so small that it is unable to provide any effective counterweight to the influence of big money - as it did in the past. Overall union membership has more or less halved from just over 30% in 1948 to around 15% in 2012. While it has increased in the public sector, in the private sector it has fallen from around 35% in 1948 to under 10% in 2012.
 
The conversation track you pursue has lingered to the right with no mention of the left. Both do, sure. The left is not the democrat of my childhood. The democrat party has been over run by its fringe that it is totally different. The right has changed, but not as radically. The democrat party is the party of race, dependency, expanding government. Nothing put forth by its leadership pushes for bettering the people, promoting independence... Frankly, the progressive movement is destroying the country. As for the unions, look at the NEA as an example of saying publicly and doing the opposite. The children are not the goal. HSTA in Hawaii is an excellent example of union power. There adder many examples.
 
SiempreTuna said:
Err .. sorry?


Re bribery/lobbying affecting democractic rights, I'm afraid opinion is not really relevant here as we actually have the facts in the Princeton study which shows - unequivocally - that not only does bribery/lobbying trump democratic rights, it's doing it more and more effectively over time. Again: that's without the recent Supreme Court rulings which can only serve to accelerate the trend.

Unions do figure in this argument, however the issue with unions is not that their influence is too big, but that it has become so small that it is unable to provide any effective counterweight to the influence of big money - as it did in the past. Overall union membership has more or less halved from just over 30% in 1948 to around 15% in 2012. While it has increased in the public sector, in the private sector it has fallen from around 35% in 1948 to under 10% in 2012.
Click to expand...


so its the moneys fault politicians who are elected by people to do something turn around and do the opposite.... I would say its corrupt politicians or a stupid electorate

this is like blaming the woman for being raped because she had on a short skirt

as for union power...... Im assuming then that you also believe the Koch brothers have..... become so small that theyre unable to provide any effective counterweight.... considering labor unions spend 4 times as much as they do politically?

I mean its not like youve ever joined that nutjub in the senate in railing against the Koch bros for their meager spending right?
 
Why do you dwell on only one side of the political spectrum. Why only the Koch family? Guess is that Dirty Harry is rubbing off. Start including the left in your diatribe, you are showing a not so good side of yourself. Otherwise I leave you to yourself.
 
Hi, it's me, your friendly moderator.:)

I'm going to ask a favor here. Let's keep our arguments focused on political ideologies and not each other. One's support or position on an issue does not make them a target for attack regardless of how vehemently you disagree with their position. Clear enough?

Thanks, carry on.:)
 
Benjie said:
Why do you dwell on only one side of the political spectrum. Why only the Koch family? Guess is that Dirty Harry is rubbing off. Start including the left in your diatribe, you are showing a not so good side of yourself. Otherwise I leave you to yourself.
Click to expand...

The left was included in later posts where their actions were relevant. The original post related to a particular effort being made by the Koch brothers, hence the 'dwelling' on them.

If a similar initiative were to come from someone on the left I would be just as keen to point it out: when something's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of the political leanings of the instigator.

The reason the right get more criticism for this kind of thing is really very simple: they do the wrong thing more often. Which is hardly surprising when so many of them base their beliefs (or claim to in order to keep 'in' with their base) on what they would like the truth to be rather than what the facts actually demonstrate it to be, e.g. climate change, evolution, 'death panels', trickle down economics, the infallibilty of markets etc etc etc.
 
Bringing this back for a moment. We notice "death panels." We assume you are aware of the current VS scandal. Would the VA system be an example of single payer and the death of the veterans affected by the scandal be indicative of death panels? The bottom line was being protected over the health/welfare of the victims. Remember, Obama campaigned on the various aspects of the VA and having been in office for a number of years, it cannot be placed on Bush 43.
 
When people of integrity stop voting for an animal and vote for politicians that have integrity you can be sure that the other animal will win the election. The only reason that we democrats have won as many presidential elections as we have is because so many conservatives insist on running on a separate ticket.

The reason they do its because when their conservative brethren get elected they tend to break the bank, and the country, and they are arrogant enough to think that if they actually won they would have done it different.

They could do it diferent if they actually wanted to, and if their brethren weren't so full of their own arrogance, but there really aren't that many Ronald Reagan's out there anymore, and the ones that are, well I'm guessing that they are democrats, because it is the democrats that seem to want to see some of the money on the lower levels, though we do tend to prefer the more direct approach; but let's face it what other choice is there.

In the Reagan era the Trickle Down theory pretty much said that the pot of gold would end up at the end of the rainbow. In today's era that pot of gold is located somewhere at the top, maybe in the heavens, or perhaps in some foreign country, cause it surely ain't here.

Now, as to why politicians would allow electric companies to apply a surcharge to those who have elected to opt out of large electric bills in favor of small electric bills? Well I am guessing that it is an attempt to recover lost revenue.

The tax on a small electric bill is probably so much smaller than the one on a large electric bill, and they want that money back, or at least as much of it as they can get back. I doubt seriously that they are actually worried about the infrastructure of the electric supply, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that all the brothers actually got to keep of the money is a small collection fee.

I mean this approach would make so much more sense than telling people your electric bill is too small so we are going to tax you more. For real, did you really think we would let you save money at our expense.

This politician who is willing to take on his peers hasn't got a snowball's chance, but I am sure all the posturing is necessary if he wants to keep his cash flow coming. I may be wrong as to his reasons, but I doubt he gets more than a token contribution from the brothers.

There is also the possibility that he has integrity, and I am just being an animal that looks like a mule.
 
The original article was written too inflame. The original post was ment to spread that flame.

You knew it coming in and the conversation got hot, even a bit foolish.

Politics, and business is about posturing. They present what they think will gain them the most.

Politicians, and business will claim to hate each other, yet they share each other's bed, and condemn anyone who dares to complain. Then they have a lovers quarrel, and approach the ones they condemn for support.

What do we do? We choose sides. We really round the very ones who lie to us, and force us to make choices that only make us poorer while they get richer.
 
Wait, did Eric call for looser immigration laws?

Honestly, the most freedom and healthiest economy come under a society where movement throughout the world is free and open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom