27 Feb

Koch’s whore and Goldman’s slave [Reader Post]

                                       

goldman 2 Pictures, Images and Photos

At The Beast “Murphy” posted the transcript of the juvenile punking of Governor Scott Walker and closed with this:

So there you have it, kids. Government isn’t for the people. It’s for the people with money. You want to be heard? Too fucking bad. You want to collectively bargain? You can’t afford a seat at the table. You may have built that table. But it’s not yours. It belongs to the Kochs and the oligarch class. It’s guarded by Republicans like Walker, and his Democratic counterparts across that ever-narrowing aisle that is corporate rule, so that the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots can swallow all the power in the world. These are known knowns, and now we just know them a little more.

“These are known knowns.”

Curiously, Walker said nothing that he hadn’t said in public already. This is a great article on Walker.

Now, about being Koch’s whore.

At Powerline John Hinderaker skewers NY Times reporter Eric Lipton for a shoddy piece of reporting on the Koch brothers and their connection to Scott Walker. Somehow, Scott Walker in Wisconsin is doing the bidding of the Koch brothers who live in Wichita.

The Times is well known for its selective concern about money in politics. In the Times’s view, billionaires are more than welcome, as long as they contribute–as most of them do–to Democrats. Lipton tries to suggest that the Koch brothers are uniquely influential contributors.
~~~~

What’s more, of the top 20 donors, 12–more than half–are unions. Isn’t there an untold story here? Aren’t the Koch brothers lonely rebels who are trying to offset the monolithic power and unparalleled financial muscle of the unions, especially the public employee unions? Isn’t that what the Wisconsin story is really about?

Those nefarious Koch brothers have an interesting right wing agenda. They donated $20 million to the ACLU in order to try to fight George Bush’s Patriot Act. The Koch brothers support drug legalization, gay marriage, and reduced defense spending.

That reads like something straight of the Tea Party manifesto, doesn’t it?

Let’s take this “Koch Whore” analogy a little further.

Hinderaker notes that the Koch PAC contributed $43,000 to Walker’s campaign, and Walker raised more than $11 million in total. Now let’s take a look at who gave Barack Obama big money.

Goldman Sachs $994,795

I can’t help but wonder- if Scott Walker is a Koch whore for a paltry $43,000, does a million dollars make Barack Obama Goldman’s slave?

Note:

Goldman Sachs was a recipient of bailout funds, estimated to be between 3 billion and $13 billion. Then-Senator Barack Obama urged passage of the bailout bill during the time Goldman was handing Obama a million bucks.

While the rest of are suffering through a poor economy, how is Goldman Sachs doing?

Pretty darned good.

NEW YORK — Goldman Sachs reported blockbuster earnings of $13.39 billion for 2009 and said on Thursday that it kept compensation below the levels of its pre-crisis heydays.

Bonus Watch 2010: Goldman Sachs Pays Huge Bonuses And Gives Junior Bankers A 50% Salary Raise

Goldman Sachs bankers to receive $15.3bn in pay and bonuses

Goldman Sachs has set aside $15.3bn to pay its staff in 2010 – an average of $430,000 each – in a move that re-ignited the controversy over City pay and bonuses.

Their investment has paid off handsomely.

“The whole point of the bailout is to save Goldman Sachs,” said Christopher Whalen, head of financial advisory services for Institutional Risk Analytics. “The whole thing is so rancid and so hideous.”

How are you doing?

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in ACLU, Barack Obama, Culture of Corruption, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, February 27th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
| 994 views

37 Responses to Koch’s whore and Goldman’s slave [Reader Post]

  1. Maggie says: 1

    Very nicely done, DrJohn.

    ReplyReply
  2. Old Trooper2 says: 2

    Excellent piece Doc. It is good to tell some Folks where OPM goes after it is handed out like Mardi Gras beads by Congress and the Current Regime. I divested about 8 years ago and bought more land, bought a few Muni Bonds, bought more cattle, horses and got into some local Cooperatives that develop Energy of several kinds and distribute it to Rural Folks and Small Towns in my neck of the woods.

    The only time I get robbed is on April 15th of every year but it is Mandatory, not Voluntary.

    ReplyReply
  3. SAME as usual, crooked deals by the always be CROOKS

    ReplyReply
  4. Wordsmith says: 4

    Also,

    Matthew Shaffer:

    The Kochs have been behind Scott Walker financially, and can be connected to almost any anti-big-government activism in the United States. But a would-be exposé from the New York Times couldn’t establish a single financial interest the Koch brothers would have in busting public-sector unions in Wisconsin. All evidence suggests the Kochs supported Walker because they believe in his policies’ justice, not their own interests.

    Hugh Hewitt:

    The second failed effort is the attempt to turn a debate over the size and scope of government into a conspiracy to seize power by the Koch brothers. This absurd, silly and almost hilarious bit of political showmanship marks the desperation of the left as it realizes that the public has genuinely turned deaf ears to their cries for preference. Like a teenager being grounded we see the public employee unions now screaming that we don’t understand, this is all somebody else’s fault, in this case the evil Koch brothers.

    As Mark Steyn pointed out, this is the sort of crazy charge that is just ridiculous and beyond any sort of ordinary, rational analysis, even though it is made by none other than the New York Times. Powerline’s John Hinderaker took his litigator’s scalpel to the Times’ nonsense, and the shredding was so complete that the reporter, Eric Lipton, decided to fire back at the blogger, not realizing perhaps that Powerline has been down this road before and sharp lawyers almost always quickly dispatch not so sharp reporters who are trying to hide something, in this case journalistic malpractice, and of course Hinderaker did just that, with ease and finality. Mr. Lipton is well and truly discredited for his low-handed “reporting,” and the Times is exposed, again, for its long-ago complete abandonment of any claim to objectivity when it comes to matters of domestic politics. It is simply a band that strikes up familiar tunes whenever the (left’s) party starts.

    ReplyReply
  5. johngalt says: 5

    What’s more, of the top 20 donors, 12–more than half–are unions.

    You realize, of course, that that statement doesn’t jive with Greg’s assertion that corporate money is the big mover and shaker in politics. Hahahahahaha!

    As for the article, it’s genius. Any breakdown of the other contributions by the Koch brothers, maybe including democrats they gave money to?

    ReplyReply
  6. Wordsmith says: 6

    Michael Barone:

    Enormous contributions, yes — to the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle.

    Follow the money, Washington reporters like to say. The money in this case comes from taxpayers, present and future, who are the source of every penny of dues paid to public employee unions, who in turn spend much of that money on politics, almost all of it for Democrats. In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party.

    So, just as the president complained in his 2010 State of the Union address about a Supreme Court decision that he feared would increase the flow of money to Republicans, he also found time to complain about a proposed state law that could reduce the flow of money to Democrats.

    Timothy Carney:

    First, unions are “Big Money.” Of the top 10 sources of political contributions since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, five are unions. Of the top 20 sources of 2010 campaign funds, 10 are unions.

    And the notion that Big Labor is cancelling out Big Business — well, that’s a Big Lie, too. The 10 industries that contributed the most during the 2010 elections — from Wall Street to government unions — all gave more to Democrats than to Republicans.

    The top donor to House and Senate campaigns in the 2010 elections — the Service Employees International Union — is otherwise known as “Obama’s Union.” The company that spent the most on lobbying in 2010 — General Electric — is also known as “the for-profit arm of the Obama Administration.”

    ReplyReply
  7. Zac says: 7

    Good commentary Doc!

    It has a Zac stamp of approval, and is on par with FA quality standards.

    ReplyReply
  8. Randy says: 8

    Recently, a general officer was accused of psychological operations against reporters and government officials visiting him in Afghanistan. He was selective in providing information about the success of his operations so the officials would agree with his campaign.
    The press labeled this as criminal. The New York Times and most of the left to include the administration has been staging psychological operations against the American tax payer for some time. They call it “spin”. It is the same thing! (George Orwell’s Animal Farm “four legs good, two legs bad!”)

    ReplyReply
  9. Reading: Koch’s whore and Goldman’s slave [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces http://bit.ly/h9b3aY

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 10

    An interesting look at the behind-the-scenes political activities of the Koch brothers, that appeared last year in The New Yorker: Covert Operations.

    ReplyReply
  11. Old Trooper2 says: 11

    @ Greg… OK then Kemosabe, Go make a Citizens Arrest!

    ReplyReply
  12. Koch’s whore and Goldman’s slave [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces: You realize, of course, that that statement does… http://bit.ly/hCGl9f

    ReplyReply
  13. Mr. Irons says: 13

    Koch Brothers? For the Republicans? Someone should have told Brownback that when he faced steep up hill competition from the Democrats backed by Koch monies here in Wichita’s voting District…

    ReplyReply
  14. Missy says: 14

    @Greg:

    Oh yes, the radical lefty, Jane Mayer’s pathetic, long winded smear. Oh my, the Kochs have a voice too and happened to have already exposed the cringy journo for what she is, extremely biased, ignorant of facts even though they were provided and she’s a liar.

    The New Yorker’s Koch story is not credible journalism
    Rather than researching and writing a well-reasoned piece that reflects a complete picture, Jane Mayer and her editors chose to print a blatantly one-sided and partial article based largely on information provided by left-leaning sources with underlying objectives. It is ironic that Mayer baselessly accuses the Kochs of using “slippery organizations with generic-sounding names” and of being “covert” when she herself employs such tactics in her article.

    Throughout her article, Mayer intentionally obfuscates or otherwise fails to mention the blatant bias of many of her sources. She relies on numerous anonymous sources, and on individuals who have no first hand or current knowledge of the Kochs or the Koch companies. Many of her sources lack objectivity or credible knowledge of her sources.

    Sources with Undisclosed Biases and Potential Conflicts of Interest

    Mayer recently claimed in an interview on CNN that she was not given much material by Koch to assist her in writing her article. This is not true. Koch provided more than 300 pages of documents that addressed most, if not all, of her questions. These documents included detailed information concerning Koch Industries, its operations and history, as well as information about Charles Koch and David Koch, their philosophy, and information concerning the Koch foundations. Koch provided information concerning the 180 environmental, health, and safety awards it has been awarded since President Obama took office. All of this information was largely ignored and omitted from Mayer’s article.

    More:
    http://www.kochind.com/kochfacts/default.aspx

    ReplyReply
  15. DrJohn says: 15

    Linked by Doug Ross. Thanks again, Doug!

    ReplyReply
  16. joetote says: 16

    Another great analysis Doc!

    ReplyReply
  17. MISSY, I believe what you give us on this, because you always bring the truth and uncover the
    story to be a lie, and letting the readers believe that the KOSH BROTHERS ARE NOT to be credible,
    MAYER really put the lie, and demonyse the KOSH brothers for her self and her MEDIA gain,
    that the crooks are her and who she represent , NOW WE KNOW, AND BRING A CORRECTION IN OUR FIRST THOUGHT, thank you

    ReplyReply
  18. Dr John, did you demonyse one on our side the KOSH BROTHERS ?

    ReplyReply
  19. DrJohn says: 19

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Bees, I am not sure what you mean. Sorry.

    ReplyReply
  20. MataHarley says: 20

    From the OP: Those nefarious Koch brothers have an interesting right wing agenda. They donated $20 million to the ACLU in order to try to fight George Bush’s Patriot Act. The Koch brothers support drug legalization, gay marriage, and reduced defense spending.

    That reads like something straight of the Tea Party manifesto, doesn’t it?

    Actually, like many corporations and billionaires, the Koch Bros play both sides of the political aisle, drj. They are not leftist, certainly do more than lean more right in their core support. Ultimately, they are businessmen who go with the flow of beltway power.

    For example, Supreme Justice Clarence Thomas came under fire because he spoke at a Jan 2008 conservative donor event sponsored by the Koch Bros. Would a liberal duo hold a conservative fundraiser, then invite Clarence Thomas?? In fact, GOP VA Gov, Bob McDonnell, has attended several of the Koch Bros summits.

    You mention the ACLU and the Patriot Act. This was not done as liberals, or conservatives, but as libertarians. Clue? Reason Magazine should have given you a heads up that they aren’t lib/progs because they gave cash to the ACLU specifically for that cause. In fact, their 2008 IRS filings and list of charitable donations includes The Federalist Society, National Taxpayers Unioin Foundation, and Hillsdale College… all conservative oriented organizations. They are also involved with Americans for Prosperity and, again according to another Politico article, were involved in helping the tea party movement get off the ground fiscally.

    In short, if Walker is, “Koch’s whore”, he is one among many conservative beneficiaries… and frankly, I think we need more of them. And I sure don’t want to watch conservatives or tea party members distancing themselves from them – or from libertarians (unless they’re the birthers… LOL) – out of fear of association.

    So I believe you miss the fact that the Koch Bros are far more conservative, and have more than a tinge of libertarian in them,than you give them credit for. They are hardly the liberal duo you implied here, in your efforts to distance them from Walker. Nor should you find any shame in their support of Walker, caving to the attack dog arguments.

    And that is what @Ms Bees meant above, if I am not mistaken.

    ReplyReply
  21. MATA thank you for explaining better what I ask, It was what I perceive, while reading ,
    AND I feel that If I perceived it, many other will too

    ReplyReply
  22. drjohn says: 22

    @MataHarley: That was the point, Mata. Next time you could ask first.

    ReplyReply
  23. drjohn says: 23

    Nowhere do I suggest that there is any shame in their support of Walker. That straw man is yours alone.

    ReplyReply
  24. MataHarley says: 24

    drj, apparently your “point” was abundantly unclear to at least Ms. Bees and myself. The text of your post that I copy/pasted in the beginning of my comment suggests that their agenda is anything but conservative.

    Why would I ask if you meant what you wrote?

    ReplyReply
  25. Greg says: 25

    @Missy, #14:

    Oh yes, the radical lefty, Jane Mayer’s pathetic, long winded smear. Oh my, the Kochs have a voice too and happened to have already exposed the cringy journo for what she is, extremely biased, ignorant of facts even though they were provided and she’s a liar.

    Specifically what part of Jane Mayer’s New Yorker article has been demonstrated to be non-factual?

    ReplyReply
  26. YES the big business should start helping the conservatives because they work their butts to bring back the reality that the people need to work, and I’t’s not the government which give them jobs,
    as they want to let them beleive, and the unions are dependant of the business big or small, so the unions better get it and stop their bullying on anyone paying the salary to an employee,
    be it any business or each STATES of the REPUBLIC responsible to have employee at the service of the people, and that’s what the conservatives are working on, as the reality is exactly it

    ReplyReply
  27. DrJohn says: 27

    @MataHarley: Gee, I don’t know- because we post on the same blog? Because it would be fair? At least Ms. Bees had the grace to ask for a clarification.

    I meant what I wrote and it seems like others did not have the same problem. All you did was corroborate what I said. My point was indeed that they were not strictly right wing.

    ReplyReply
  28. DrJohn says: 28

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Ms. Bees, the answer is no, not at all. While the Koch brothers do lean right, they have also donated to democrats.

    ReplyReply
  29. johngalt says: 29

    @Greg:

    Not that Missy needs any of my help in beating you down again, but I’ll give you one, and it’s part of the headline of the article(“Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers Who Are Waging a War Against Obama.”)

    The idea that the campaign is “covert” is echoed in the text of the article, which says, “In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular.”
    ……………….
    But there’s nothing covert or stealthy or underground about it, as evidenced by the fact that Ms. Mayer is able to write about it in her article. The details are readily available on Web sites, federal election records available on the Internet, and in tax returns that are posted on Web sites.

    http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2010/08/the-new-yorker-on-david-and-charles-koch

    But, of course, this is just “spin” on her part, right?

    ReplyReply
  30. MataHarley says: 30

    “Lean” right? LOL drj, I am obviously going to risk agitating you further. But it shall be the last, I assure you.

    To clarify my misunderstanding of what you were intending to portray.. here’s how it goes. Hindraker portrayed the Koch brothers as the “…lonely rebels who are trying to offset the monolithic power and unparalleled financial muscle of the unions, especially the public employee unions…” And I happen to agree.

    You immediately followed that with your commentary saying they donated funds to fight the Patriot Act, etal, then suggested these views weren’t part of the “tea party manifesto”. This, I could only assume, was to portray the Koch brothers as not necessarily conservative.

    WTF? Do you consider them lukewarm conservative libertarians? And why would you?

    Well, thank heavens for Americans for Prosperity *and* the tea party that they are hardcore libertarian conservatives to the bone, and do more than “lean” with their money.. Since 2006, the balance of their political recipients of funding has been between 83% to 91% GOP, according to Open Secrets. I didn’t go thru their few Dem recipients, but I’m betting Harry, Nancy, and Turban Durbin ain’t among them. Blue Dogs most likely. News flash… there’s a few Dems I like too.

    And I might point out that many tea party members are also Libertarian, so they share that same “manifesto” with the Koch brothers. This is where donating to the ACLU for a libertarian issue is not donating to “Democrats”, as you suggest, but part of being very Libertarian… of which they unapologetically are. Does that make them “not right wing” or donating to “democrats”? Portions of Libertarianism are more extreme right than conservatives/GOP.

    And, ya know… I don’t have one problem with that. They are the yin to George Soros’ yang. So if the Dems want to scream “right wing conspiracists” when their names are mentioned, I say we smile and say “yeah… and they’re good at it, too”, while simultaneously flashing a big ol’ picture of Soros or Al Gore. I’ll take Americans for Prosperity over MoveOn dot Org any day of the week, and I’m quite happy to have them as supposed “right wing conspiracists”.

    And now you know why I didn’t get “your point”, along with Bees. That may have been why you didn’t even understand her original question. You did not see it framed in the same way we saw it framed upon reading. Well, I can’t speak for the affable Ms. Bees, but geez… pardon the hell out of me.

    In my two years here, and thru many disagreements with the other authors, I have never publicly been asked on this forum (let alone more than once) to contact any of them off forum before airing a counter point, drj. Nor do I expect it of them. I assure you, I’m not about to start now, so you can stop asking. But I have to say, with you and your quick on the trigger personal affronts whenever the echo chamber doesn’t happen – or “your point” doesn’t come across as you intended… it makes it darned hard to miss MikesA. LOL

    ReplyReply
  31. Old Trooper2 says: 31

    Why Koch Industries Is Speaking Out

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288304576170974226083178.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    For Critics or Supporters, the Author of this piece is Charles G. Koch. Get some at the link.
    I strongly concur with him.

    ReplyReply
  32. johngalt says: 32

    @Greg:

    Hey, Greg, let’s alter the narrative here a bit. Who do you think those 14 Wisconsin state senators rely on heavily for campaign donations? If you guess public employee unions, then you win the prize!

    Missing senators rely heavily on union campaign dollars

    By Daniel Bice and Ben Poston of the Journal Sentinel

    The 14 Wisconsin Democratic senators who fled to Illinois share more than just political sympathy with the public employees and unions targeted by Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-repair bill.

    The Senate Democrats count on those in the public sector as a key funding source for their campaigns.

    In fact, one out of every five dollars raised by those Democratic senators in the past two election cycles came from public employees, such as teachers and firefighters, and their unions, a Journal Sentinel analysis of campaign records shows.
    …………..
    According to records compiled by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, the 14 Senate Democrats have raised a total of $1.9 million in campaign dollars since the start of 2007. Out of that sum, public employee unions and individual government workers contributed at least $344,000.

    In truth, the figure may be even higher, but candidates don’t have to identify the occupations of those giving $100 or less.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117078618.html

    That link is from the Journal-Sentinel, a Milwaukee based paper that typically leans more left than anything. Below is a link of the table the paper has compiled showing campaign receipts for the 14, along with the amounts given by public sector unions.

    http://media.journalinteractive.com/images/unionG_022711.jpg

    Now, Greg, you can stop the rhetoric about Walker being controlled by the Kochs(remember, only $43k of approximately $9million, a paltry half percent of the total). Those dems, total received $344k out of $1.94 for a Eighteen percent, are pretty far in bed with the public employee unions, don’t you think?

    ReplyReply
  33. DrJohn says: 33

    @MataHarley:

    This, I could only assume, was to portray the Koch brothers as not necessarily conservative.

    As not purely conservative as asserted by the left.

    And I might point out that many tea party members are also Libertarian, so they share that same “manifesto” with the Koch brothers.

    Fantastic! Another straw man.

    In my two years here, and thru many disagreements with the other authors, I have never publicly been asked on this forum (let alone more than once) to contact any of them off forum before airing a counter point, drj.

    Another straw man alert! Where did I ask that? All I suggested was that you ask what someone might have meant before you rip into him or her in your usual grandstanding fashion. As I observed, Ms. Bees did have the courtesy to do so.

    ReplyReply
  34. MataHarley says: 34

    drj, this is, I swear, my last post addressing you… and I’ll start with an apology. No, you did not ask me publicly this time for an off forum “suggestion”. For that I shall apologize. However your hypersensitivity was reminiscent of your other flying off the handle where you did indeed say:

    I appreciate you contacting me via email instead of grandstanding this in the post so as to avoid appearing to inflating your own currency.

    Since it was only a few weeks ago, that stuff stays fresh in my mind. As I leave your thread and personal attitudes behind, you might really want to seriously ponder just what in the below was “ripping” into you in “my usual grandstanding fashion”.

    So I believe you miss the fact that the Koch Bros are far more conservative, and have more than a tinge of libertarian in them,than you give them credit for. They are hardly the liberal duo you implied here, in your efforts to distance them from Walker. Nor should you find any shame in their support of Walker, caving to the attack dog arguments.

    And that is what @Ms Bees meant above, if I am not mistaken.

    Hardly “ripping”, and hardly “grandstanding”. As far as the courteous Ms. Bees, you could learn a lot from her before acting like the victimized whipping boy and coming at me with your ensuing comment.

    And my apologies to the rest of you for the dirty laundry airing. I’m outta here. The hypersensitivity around here is simply more than I can take. LOL

    ReplyReply
  35. Dr John, I just read the link from OT, and I would think that with 50,000 employees,
    they have to play the game of supporting both partys, because of their relation with employees from
    all verse of society and political inclination, demand it. the high number of employees require different needs for a company that is family oriented at home and most likely at their multi businesses,
    that would possibly be the reason of their action to support their employees in their demands on raising money for the DEMOCRATS, as we know, some people vote for their man, where other vote their party
    or other reason, anyway if the KOSH BROTHERS give the CONSERVATIVES an substantial amount,
    It should be appreciate, no matter what other receive because their freedom to do what they want
    and don’t need to advertise the reason why they do things, I think this multi operation business
    In AMERICA, should get our positive appreciation specialy with 50,000 employees on their payroll,
    they surely can teach the present GOVERNMENT more than a few of their tricks,

    ReplyReply
  36. drjohn says: 36

    @ilovebeeswarzone: I completely agree, Ms. Bees. I was not demonizing the Koch brothers and I think that was your question. As John Hinderaker pointed out, that’s what the left was doing and it was wrong to do that. The Koch brothers run highly respected businesses and yes they do put their money where business serves. The bottom line is that I agree with you and none of my post belittles the Koch brothers.

    The point of this post was simple and precise- if the $43,000 they gave to Walker makes Walker their whore as lefties have been saying, then the $1,000,000 Goldman gave to Obama makes Obama Goldman’s slave. And it can be shown that Goldman was putting money in Obama’s pocket at the very time he was voting to rescue them.

    That’s it. The rest of it is less consequential.

    ReplyReply
  37. drjohn says: 37

    @MataHarley:

    No, you did not ask me publicly this time for an off forum “suggestion”.

    That’s correct, I did not. I suggested that you could ask me what I meant instead of running on as you did. Ms. Bees’ question seems to have been “did you demonize the Koch brothers?” and I did not. You had to add your condescension to it. Look at this-

    Why would I ask if you meant what you wrote?

    Good grief. This suggests that there is only one way of interpreting anything. The Koch brothers are NOT strict conservatives. But you could have asked instead of assuming that what you think can be the only possibility.

    Nor should you find any shame in their support of Walker, caving to the attack dog arguments.

    At no time was this true, but this is typical of the straw men you add to arguments to smother the targets of your criticism.

    Aye disagrees on occasion and with class. You like to bite. There’s a huge difference between “I disagree” and “Goodness me, dearie, you’re so wrong”

    We’re supposed to be on the same side here.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>