He has this horrifying quote from Media Matters chairman, David Brock, speaking to a Democracy Alliance group:
You’re not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids. Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want: keeping us quiet about what they’re doing to destroy the very fabric of our nation.That's one of the many, many ways of saying the end justifies the means.
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
Ya think?
It's not quite that the ends justify the means. More so that the good guys should be allowed to play by looser rules than the bad guys. Because they can be trusted.
David Brock is one of those rare cases who was conservative early and became liberal later. He has neither a heart nor a head.
Lefites love the term "false equivalence". When I see that phrase, I know something excusing leftish hypocrisy is about to follow.
no kiddin'
NEXT.
But how about that language in that Brock quote?
"free to make money poisoning little kids"?
"destroy the fabric of our nation"?
What's sad is that there are obviously people susceptible to this type of rhetoric (on both sides of the aisle I might add) otherwise he wouldn't deploy it.
...so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids.
Is there a lot of money to be made poisoning little kids? I've always pursued it just as a hobby, but maybe I should consider a career.
tim maguire:
I don't think Brock was either conservative as a young man or liberal as an older man. Brock is an opportunist trying to capitalize (in the sense of capitalism) on the political mood of the country. He's trying to cash checks and he was happy to take them from conservatives when they were in the ascendency during the Reagan years (or just after) and is happy to take checks from Leftists now that Leftists are on the rise.
The idea that David Brock has an ideological core beyond his own interests is inconsistent with the evidence.
BTW: It's not hypocritical if you don't believe in anything.
I would like to read the article now, but I have puppies to kill, water to pollute, guns to clean, union employees to victimize, CO2 to generate, illegal aliens to exploit, women to subdue and minorities to repress.
What's not to love about being a conservative?
Koch officials declined to answer my question, “Is transparency a good thing in democratic politics?”
I'd have answered it with another question: "Should we do away with the secret ballot then?"
Democrats have always believed that the end justifies the means. You just now worked that out?
If conservatives are allowed to engage in anonymous political speech then how will the IRS know who to audit?
"Kochs, racists, homophobes, campus rape, war on women, amnesty, government shutdown, poison little kids, etc."
Pap for morons.
Tim Mc G: "David Brock is one of those rare cases who was conservative early and became liberal later. He has neither a heart nor a head."
More important, like most prominent Democrats, he has no soul.
Lololol drudge has a quote from Peabrain.
He would have beaten Reagan if he was more manly.
I suppose Austan Goolsbee having the Koch's tax returns while working for the White House could be considered a form of transparency.
there is a big difference between this and the Kochs and their ilk. Our donors are using the current political system to bring about laws and policies that would change that system in a way that gives their wealth less weight. Not to mention advocating policies that would often tax or regulate them more.
"Their" wealth, really? Political influence and greater government control breeds exceptions for certain kinds of wealth made for certain kinds of people.
And the mere fact that an already wealthy person would do something to inhibit the creation of new wealth for those aspiring to it sounds like old moneyed artistocracy not progressivism.
Edsall mentions the Kochs or their organizations 15 times. He never mentions George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, or Mark Zuckerberg, even those these three are well known for organizing anonymous donations to Democratic causes. He talks about Democracy Alliance, and mentions Media Matters, but doesn't describe the techniques Media Matters uses to funnel anonymous donations to Democratic campaigns. Nor does he even mention Organizing for America, which also funnels huge amounts of cash to Democrats.
Of course, on the other side he could have talked about Rove's group as well as the Barbours'.
Those are some pretty big omissions for a piece that claims to fairly treat the differences between Republican and Democratic fund-raising.
Bastiat was right.
Pointing out the various hypocrisies of Democrats is extremely easy and satisfying in the short term, but it is ultimately frustrating. It's like making great pancakes. It's not difficult to master pancakes and they're very satisfying in the short term, but ultimately you get tired of eating them and nothing changes.
After a certain age an overwhelming majority of adults won't ever change their core political beliefs. You can point out all the flaws in their arguments, and the failings of their systems throughout history, but they'll still find some weird way to justify bad thinking. At some point it comes down to a faith that their political opponents are just evil and therefore any opposition to them is ultimately good, no matter how destructive it is.
The ease with which the Democrats have demonized the Kochs is a good reminder that it *can* happen here. Indeed, it *is* happening here. It is a disgrace.
I've often wondered exactly what contradiction it was Godel discovered in the Constitution.
Paul Zrimsek said...
I'd have answered it with another question: "Should we do away with the secret ballot then?"
False equivalence. Everyone should have a vote, only a tiny fraction of the population has billions to buy a politician.
"Lefites love the term "false equivalence". When I see that phrase, I know something excusing leftish hypocrisy is about to follow."
You beat me to it--almost every time someone uses that term it's their way of trying to pre-empt clear charges of hypocrisy.
Brock is no one to take seriously--by his own admission he was a dishonest hack when he was on the side of the right wing; why should we suddenly believe that now that he's a lefty he's developed ethics and credibility?
So's saying shooting Michael Brown was "a good kill" but I don't hear any complaints about that.
Hurting a political operative = bad.
Killing black citizens = tolerable to the point of irrelivence.
Whites have the strangest priorities,...
"The idea that David Brock has an ideological core beyond his own interests is inconsistent with the evidence."
He has ridden the wave pretty well. I do think his gayness had something to do with his switch from R to D. He is certainly not an example of the tolerant gay.
The Dems are hamstrung between demonizing wealth while taking contributions from the wealthiest crony capitalist people on earth disguised as social work.
Soros, Steyer, Speilberg, Geffen, Zuckerberg, Schmidt, Green, Pritzker, Buffett, Bloomberg...
"Billionaires for Bush" are always descending on America yet they always keep bankrolling the Democrats.
"...the end justifies the means."
They always have good intentions, therefore anyone who opposes them has bad intentions. It's for the children, single mothers, working poor, protected classes, etc.
They never understood what kind of pavers they use to build the road to perdition. Or economics.
It is rhetorically useful for first amendment foes to focus on money, because money is quantifiable. Name a quantity and you provide the illusion of precision.
But money is just a medium for something more profound. The actual complaint is not about money. It is about influence.
Rephrase the issue correctly and it complicates in subtle -- and not so subtle -- ways.
"We need to rid politics of influence" is not so easily argued as "we need to rid politics of money."
The first complication: We can't, and don't want to rid politics of influence. Politics is the expression of influence, starting with the vote. Consider the petition, the protest, the coalition, the party -- all these are instruments of influence legitimized in a democratic society.
Undo influence is the Rubicon that must not be crossed, if only we could find it. Somewhere in the swamp of influence is a main channel that all good people recognize.
The substitution of "money" for "influence" is a crude proxy, the divination of truth from the flight of birds. And yet, looking around, instead of up, the channels combine and divide among the rushes in every direction.
Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want: keeping us quiet about what they’re doing to destroy the very fabric of our nation.
Koch Bros are big boys and can defend themselves, but, seriously, not another word out of a Democrat's mouth about McCarthyism ever again.
P.S. Soros makes his fortune immiserating countries by shorting their currencies. Liberals flock to him like seagulls to a garbage scow.
There is something creepy about demonizing private citizens who are making all their campaign donations legally, simply because of the amount of their donations. Is there some threshhold below which a donor should stay to avoid being targeted by the powers that be?
It's one thing if the donor is skirting the law, or making the donations as part of some corrupt bargain to curry favor from the politicians he's supporting. But this idea that Koch donations are evil because they're rich and want to influence policy but Soros donations are fine because he's rich and wants to influence policy in a more virtuous way is such an offensive notion that it stains anyone who advances it.
It's all fair game, I suppose, but it's still creepy.
Ignorance is Bliss said: If conservatives are allowed to engage in anonymous political speech then how will the IRS know who to audit?
Or who's house to raid in the dark of night for John Doe #X?
Seeing Red wrote: Bastiat was right.
Exactly. The seen and the unseen. Money is easy to see. Influence is hard to see. Thus, demagogues demonize money.
Think of the children, really?
Equal protection, since when?
It's not just the money. Although, I imagine the money from welfare street, Wall Street, public street, and unaccounted foreign sources would keep them fat, gay, and deluded. Still, leverage manifests in diverse forms.
Democrats don't have a perception problem. They have an inimitable conflict with reality.
"Killing black citizens = tolerable to the point of irrelivence."
As always, Crack is uninformed. This is a black, not a white phenomenon. Whites are merely confused.
Let's see. When blacks kill blacks, it's tolerable to blacks, but when a white (or white hispanic) kills a black, blacks are outraged. But when a white kills a white or a black kills a white, it is tolerable to blacks "to the point of irrelevance."
Go figure.
Poisoning little kids, huh? remember when the media was all over "eliminationist rhetoric" and it was supposed to be bad to accuse your political opponents of "destroy[ing] the very fabric of our nation?" Yeah, no one in the media does, either.
Your headline could have stopped after five words.
Just a question for the lefties in attendance. Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?
That's one of the many, many ways of saying the end justifies the means.
I can see why you say that, but I don't think that's what Brock is saying.
What I think Brock is saying is that "good people" like those Democratic donors do "good things", while "bad people", who believe the wrong ideology like the Koch brothers, do "bad things".
I think it's actually worse than "the ends justifies the means", because that moral maxim aims at being generally applicable to all moral subjects. But, Brock & his ilk believe, in a toxic combination of John Calvin & Karl Marx, that their ideological beliefs insulate them against doing evil by definition. Whatever they do is good, because they are doing it.
This is why I'm so distrustful of secular moralities. Many secular moralists don't get rid of sin --- they just make sure it's the guys on the other side who commit all of them. At least with the believers, they must admit, if only under great duress, that they, too, are sinners & that no amount of ideological purity can fix that state of affairs.
In contrast, political spending by the Kochs and their allies is in effect a business expense — it coincides with and advances their bottom line financial interests. There’s a moral distinction here.
The takeaway seems to be that Democrats should raise more money from billionaires and less from labor unions.
"...so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids."
The only appropriate response to this is, Fuck You.
my friend stumbled on this weird trick and made $3500 in one week poisoning little kids from home...
"there is a big difference between this and the Kochs and their ilk. Our donors are using the current political system to bring about laws and policies that would change that system in a way that gives their wealth less weight."
It's an old story: Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, 1965: "Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left."
Isn't there anything new in leftist thought?
Michael The Magnificent said...
Just a question for the lefties in attendance. Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?
Troll.
Michael The Magnificent said...
Just a question for the lefties in attendance. Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?
Troll.
CS Lewis was also right.
Everyone has "a" vote?
Some areas have more than one.
Brando said...
There is something creepy about demonizing private citizens who are making all their campaign donations legally, simply because of the amount of their donations. Is there some threshhold below which a donor should stay to avoid being targeted by the powers that be?
10/1/14, 11:34 AM
No, what you need to do is disable the check on your donation site so that you can accept unlimited foreign donations and then "it all good".
False equivalence. Everyone should have a vote, only a tiny fraction of the population has billions to buy a politician.
...the majority of those billions are on the Democratic side, mind you.
But those are the GOOD billionaires. Like how Steyer was the GOOD hedge fund manager. Or Soros was the GOOD guy trying to derail an economy for profit.
"We need to rid politics of influence" is not so easily argued as "we need to rid politics of money."
And, ironically, following conservative principles would do that while Progressive principles make it impossible.
If the gov't interferes in everything, one would be an idiot to not take advantage for your own benefit.
Saw something a day or two ago on Real Clear Politics. If current polls are anywhere accurate, Republicans have a good chance at winning the Senate - except that this election cycle the Dems have greatly out fund raised the Reps, and are sitting on large reserves of cash right now, and have a lot more billionaire money floating into these contests right now - Bllomburg and Steyer alone have committed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars this cycle for advocacy adds that support Dems.
The dirty dark secret has long been that more of pretty much any type of questionable campaign money flows to the Democrats. And it tends to be dirtier - being the party of crony capitalist socialism, they much more willingly engage in quid pro quod type political fundraising. So what if Buffet makes many millions with his railroads by opposing the pipeline. Ditto for recent environmental convert Tom Steyer. They are apparently entitled to additional billions because they support Democrats, and not as much Republicans with their largess.
"Killing black citizens = tolerable to the point of irrelivence [sic]."
Absolutely:
...in Chicago, a black child is assassinated, and Attorney General Eric Holder isn't on his way here. There are no hashtag campaigns saying #saveourboys. And instead of loud anger, there is numb silence.
The only appropriate response to this is...
...winning the election. Save the FU for the acceptance speech.
I never really understood the logic of the claim that special interests can buy politicians. Do you think that if the Koch brothers gave Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid a billion dollars they would vote any differently than they do currently?
ARM writes;
" Everyone should have a vote, only a tiny fraction of the population has billions to buy a politician."
But should they have a secret vote? Or should we have transparency in politics?
Bruce Hayden wrote;
"So what if Buffet makes many millions with his railroads by opposing the pipeline."
Does he oppose the pipeline?
In March on CNBC he said he'd vote "yes" on the pipeline.
"Our donors are using the current political system to bring about laws and policies that would change that system in a way that gives their wealth less weight."
Like Elon Musk extracting tax subsidies on the sales of his cars and the locations of his battery plants...
...or Mark Zuckerberg gaming the visa system to displace native-born workers...
...or Warren Buffett steering crude oil carriage to derailment-prone railcars...
...or George Kaiser gaming the Solyndra bankrputcy to line-jump ahead of taxpayers and bondholders...
...or Google's Central Cali solar array that incinerates, without penalty, thousands of migratory birds a year.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Is there a lot of money to be made poisoning little kids? I've always pursued it just as a hobby, but maybe I should consider a career.
You need one of them federal stimulus grants to make any money from it, in which case doesn't matter if you actually poison anyone or not.
The Crack Emcee said...
So's saying shooting Michael Brown was "a good kill" but I don't hear any complaints about that.
Hurting a political operative = bad.
Killing black citizens = tolerable to the point of irrelivence.
Whites have the strangest priorities,...
10/1/14, 11:03 AM
Change your bait, even the bottom feeders won't hit that anymore.
Let's see. When blacks kill blacks, it's tolerable to blacks, but when a white (or white hispanic) kills a black, blacks are outraged. But when a white kills a white or a black kills a white, it is tolerable to blacks "to the point of irrelevance."
We all remember the riots, death threats, media circus and blatant federal intrusion into the investigation of the following crime:
http://patterico.com/2013/07/21/if-only-there-were-a-case-where-a-white-teen-was-shot-by-a-black-man-who-claimed-self-defense-we-could-evaluate-obamas-comments-that-it-would-have-been-different-whats-that-there-is/
Oclarki,
I never really understood the logic of the claim that special interests can buy politicians. Do you think that if the Koch brothers gave Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid a billion dollars they would vote any differently than they do currently?
Oh, probably not, though many billionaires will give money anyway, just on the off chance. Can't hurt, if you've got zeroes on your bank balance to burn.
The real lure, I think, is catching your politician early, before s/he's in national office. Once get them in, and you have ... well, let's say, a wholly owned subsidiary.
This was a good column by Edsall who usually just churn's out the party line. The comments are very instructive - it seems that when you don't preach to the choir, the choir can get upset.
"The real lure, I think, is catching your politician early, before s/he's in national office. Once get them in, and you have ... well, let's say, a wholly owned subsidiary."
The sort of giving that Koch or Soros usually get involved in is actually the type that should be just fine--people with money wanting to support politicians who are likely to enact the goals they want. They're not likely to change a politician's vote, but rather help out the politicians who are more inclined to vote their way--and perhaps encourage them to hew to the party line or risk not getting that support the next time.
The sort of "buying" that is more unseemly are the less noticed types of donations--getting a smaller piece of legislation that tends to benefit your industry or pet cause. Maybe Pelosi wouldn't support a broad based tax cut, but she might support an exception to some regulatory prohibition that might affect only the donor's business. When these sort of quid pro quos get noticed there's usually more of a scandal, but they often stay under the media's radar.
Hell, the ultimate leftists, the Communists, killed over 85 million for the greater good. They really knew how to justify the means.
Do you think that if the Koch brothers gave Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid a billion dollars they would vote any differently than they do currently?
Protection rackets aren't red/blue.
If it were for narrow carve-outs or earmarks that didn't conflict with fundamental policies either supported...in a New York Minute.
George Soros = Koch Bros is a "false equivalency because "All of the assholes are on the other side.
"In March on CNBC he said he'd vote "yes" on the pipeline."
When pressed on it in public and where there was no risk of it happening.
AReasonableMan said, over and over again, "Troll".
It's getting old.
Repetition != cool.
Move on, man.
Bob Ellison said...
Move on, man.
Although most of the complaints about this forum focus on Crack, most of the real trolls are actually right wingers. They screw up thread after thread with their inanities. There are some thoughtful voices here but they get drowned out by half-wits. I understand that you generally don't hear these trolls, because they are on your side, but I think we need a better balance.
Of course if you want to defend the statement, " Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?", as thoughtful commentary, knock yourself out.
Seems ARM learned a new word! "Troll!" Good boy! Now, do you know what this is? "Cookie." Can you say that, ARM? "Kooooo-key!" No? Not ready for that one yet? Well, you can have this one so you're not eating so much paste...
Chef Mojo said...
Seems ARM learned a new word! "Troll!" Good boy! Now, do you know what this is? "Cookie." Can you say that, ARM? "Kooooo-key!" No? Not ready for that one yet? Well, you can have this one so you're not eating so much paste...
Apparently this Troll was overly anxious to prove my point.
"Change your bait, even the bottom feeders won't hit that anymore"
You just did. People complain about Crack and then they encourage him.
"Change your bait, even the bottom feeders won't hit that anymore"
You just did. People complain about Crack and then they encourage him.
OK ARM. I'll bite.
'Of course if you want to defend the statement, " Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?", as thoughtful commentary, knock yourself out.'
If that doesn't count then I'm waiting for you to defend or condemn David Brook's original statement. After all, the first was just a comment on a blog. David Brock's statement was literally trolling for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
ARM snarked,
"Of course if you want to defend the statement, " Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?", as thoughtful commentary, knock yourself out."
In that case I'm waiting for you to defend or condemn David Brock's original quote.
One was just a comment on a blog. The other was trolling for tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So in your mind and with your comment history, which one was the bigger troll?
The problem with the current system is that donors, rather than voters, tend to be the constituents that matter to politicians. Voters are no longer the people who choose elected officials. It's campaign donors. So many seats are safe that getting in one is more a matter of money than of votes.
This used to be a lefty talking point, but now conservatives are saying the same thing. That's partly because we have a Democratic President, but also because the problem is becoming so obvious that it's hard to deny anymore.
The exact same thing happened in ancient Athens and the Roman Republic.
Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?
The above is parody of David Brock, who said the following, as quoted in the article, ARM
You’re not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids. Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want:
So, yes, I defend it as thoughtful commentary and point out that again, as so many times in the past, you fail to see a point you disagree with.
It seems like every administration the dems pick one group to lay all the evils of society on, air or to this it was Haliburton. My guess is, its easier to just have one name to rally against otherwise it gets confusing for the dears.
AReasonableMan wrote:
Of course if you want to defend the statement, " Do the Koch brothers poison the little children before or after they use their blood to make their baked goods?", as thoughtful commentary, knock yourself out."
He's suggesting that the left are engaging in blood libels when smearing the Koch brothers. And frankly, they are.
"In that case I'm waiting for you to defend or condemn David Brock's original quote."
ARM is cool with the Brock quote, I'm sure.
There are many people who have never heard of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and do not know what many of these comments refer to. They need to be told that the Czarist government of Russia defamed all Jews by claiming that they used Christian childrens' blood to make matzos. There are people today who still believe this. This still needs to be stopped.
chuck said..."The ease with which the Democrats have demonized the Kochs is a good reminder that it *can* happen here. Indeed, it *is* happening here. It is a disgrace"
YES! I'm continually astounded by the bloody vitriol I hear acquaintances directing towards the Kochs. These acquaintances believe themselves to be extremely well-informed, yet they seem utterly ignorant of actual positions held by the Kochs.
The Red Guards would be proud.
ARM should have taken the four dollars.
Gee, ARM, oOthers got the reference, so it wasn't too clever, just too clever for you.
If you ever saw the movie Gattica you would understand ARM, you see, those of us who got the reference are "in-valids" and so our thinking need not be considered.
ARM, on the other hand, is right in all things, so he need never consider an alternative point of view if he disagrees with it. That's because he's a "centrist" you see, and "centrists" don't really sympathize with both sides of an argument.
Plus he is "reasonable" and "reasonable" people don't take into account what conservatives think even to reasonably consider whether they are right or wrong in a particular case. Once again, that is because he is square in the middle, not on some wing or other.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा