61–70 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hardly involuntary. No one's holding a gun to your head to own a TV receiver.
So you buy a receiver will never watch the channel, yet you must pay whether or not you even agree with their programming and somehow that is voluntary excise? It's strongarming.
I found this podcast, an interview with Charles Koch, interesting. There are two parts to it. Whatever the ideological issues may be, I found he spoke in an engaging way. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-... http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charles seems like a nice guy. Curious, what is the political problem with him? https://youtu.be/Z7Pj2rKdKII A quote from the video: If you don't learn to do dirty jobs, if you don't learn unpleasant work, by the time you're in your 30s, you never learn to work productively ... you learn from that you don't want to do that the rest of your life, so you had better find some aptitude. He says that after telling about a…
They massively distort our democracy by spending billions on political advocacy for their pet causes.
I guess a certain someone gets to become the time person of the year after all.
Officially it's someone/something "[that] for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you buy a receiver will never watch the channel, yet you must pay whether or not you even agree with their programming and somehow that is voluntary excise? It's strongarming.
There are plenty of things my government does (like invade Iraq or charge zero dollars for mineral rights) that I am forced to pay for. Cry me a river.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are those connected to the owner though?
Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't hate him, in fact, I've read a lot about and been impressed with some of his goals, particularly criminal reform [0]. However, I've never been overly political, and I'm currently not in the population most affected by the influence of his campaign spending. Someone who is greatly affected by something like, say, reproductive rights, would probably feel differently about how Charles Koch's money -- whatever it…
The Koch brothers are pro-choice, as far as I know. They also support gay marriage and an end to drug prohibition. http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/politics/david-koch-gay-rights...
So while I personally can't articulate reasons why the Koch deserve enmity, I sure as hell don't have the right to judge people who are directly disenfranchised because of the Kochs' choice in priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Koch brothers ... are opposed to action against climate change. Even after the results from Berkeley earth that was in part funded by one of the Koch foundations? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
Yes? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-... You don't have to be completely binary in your judgements of people like the Koch brothers. They can still be politically questionable even if they do things you agree with from time to time. For instance, their views on criminal justice reform would probably be quite favourably received by many of the same people who oppose their views on climate c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.
It's a fundamental denial of obvious facts to claim that editorial control by the owner of a media outlet is conspiracy theory. There are plenty of well known examples, though most people only acknowledge the ones that are opposite their own political beliefs.
Saying he makes editorial decisions in the newspaper because they printed criticism of Sanders or his competition doesn't cut it for me.