quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
How seriously can you take any information from the Heritage Foundation whose biggest contributor is the Koch brothers? I ask that since it comes off often as a source by conservatives on this forum. How many threads have we seen, created by conservatives, bitching about the Heritage Foundation obtaining money from the Koch brothers when reporting on something? That's right....NEVER. If your going to slam one person for a $50,000 donation; then its fair you point out an organization that does it more often.

I say the guy should have disclosed things and been up front about it. Being honest to the public to whom your reporting information is important to maintaining credibility and integrity. He's since done it and apologize. Move on...

it beats me how you are still equating the two things. that aside...

An because of that lack of knowledge, you can not truly understand the underpinnings of what I'm stating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
how often, or how much a person contributes to an organization is generally independent to the creation (and content) of the organization's product. the heritage foundation is a good place of reference for conservatives and libertarians because the they produce content we resonate with---not because the Koch brothers donate to them, which, incredibly, seems to be your argument. the organization owes its existence to a collaboration of like-minded and independent people who the Koch brothers also happen to agree with.

If that was true...

..You'd have NO ARGUMENT with the US Government as a whole. You wouldn't have a single problem with President Obama, or what Democrats were doing within Government (since they are public employees of the US Government). Since there are...PLENTY....of posts from you, yourself, that have problems with the US Government; I have to say this 'argument' of yours is pretty bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the order goes like this, heritage foundation writes good stuff, Koch brothers give dollars.

Which came first? The chicken? Or the egg? In this particular case, the Koch brothers originally funded the Heritage's start up costs. They even hired the first string of individuals that would be its first staff. That staff, will only hire those with 'like-minded political' views to the Koch brothers. The Heritage Foundation writes stuff of a political bent. That they leave out easily cited material to push a political agenda has been noted hundreds of times already.

They are not the Government Accounting Office (GAO), nor have the credibility of the long time 'old school' conservative organization Gallup. They are a mouthpiece of some rich billionaires just as FOX 'news' is the mouthpiece of the GOP/TP. For sake of fairness, MSNBC is most likely a liberal 'owned' entity. I don't trust their reporting anymore than FOX 'news'.

I might trust either of them over the Heritage Foundation, since this group doesn't care about being 'honest' and 'authentic' (read: creditable with integrity) to all Americans. They just have to fool the conservatives and libertarians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
not, Koch brothers create/control organization and tell it what to produce.

An if the Heritage Foundation states bad stuff about its biggest financial contributor? With the Koch brothers keep giving them money? Not likely! How many bad things has the Heritage Foundation reported on about the Koch brothers and their various organizations/companies? None to date...

So it would be a fair observation that the Heritage Foundation is fully under the control of the Koch brothers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
and even if it were the latter---so what, its still top notch material for people on my side of the spectrum.

As I said before; they just have to fool people like you into believing their crap. That your inability to look at their material in an objective manner, speaks of how well that organization knows its target market.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
we are not discussing money laundering since none has been laundered at this point.

Lets discuss the 2nd amendment money laundering by the NRA.

Yes, the NRA has....ALWAYS...been 'truthful' and 'honest' in its reporting of things....

Imagine if they did...

"Hey NRA, do guns kill people?"

"Yes".

We know this, because we can test it scientifically!

You know, I've long wanted to put a webcam pointed at my AR so I can know when it sneaks out and randomly kills people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

it beats me how you are still equating the two things. that aside...

An because of that lack of knowledge, you can not truly understand the underpinnings of what I'm stating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

As I said before; they just have to fool people like you into believing their crap.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And they are open about that. Since the discussion is about hiding affiliations you are, as usual, comparing apples and gravel.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm still waiting for you to school me on your vast knowledge of CO2 that I don't understand after studying physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics for a few years. But, I can't seem to get you to pin down the knowledge I don't understand or point out the crap the university foisted on me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Why dont you run off now, joether, and start yourself a thread about the Koch brothers

This thread is about George Stephanopoulos' shocking lack of journalistic integrity

Shocking, even by todays standards

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And they are open about that. Since the discussion is about hiding affiliations you are, as usual, comparing apples and gravel.

Funny, cant deal with any one issue. Your agreeing that you don't have anymore intellectual 'ammunition' to disagree with any one of my points.

The Koch brothers are not honest individuals. They have some good PR firms on the pay role. They also have lawyers and accountants. These people are all highly skilled individuals into what they do. An that its been documented by journalism time and again is also noted (I'm sure a few on the Koch pay role gets fired when that happens...).

I know how much you distrust politicians, so consider the following:

The Koch brothers control many billions in assets. Many companies. Each company is run as a feudal organization with a bent towards capitalism (were as feudal society was often socialist towards business). So each of these organizations is run by both brothers, that would make them rules of their own kingdoms, right? What is another word for someone that rules over the day-to-day and long-term operations of a society in 'USA Terms'? A politician.

Do you hold these two 'politicians' to the same level of accountability and responsibility with power as you slam those of great wealth and/or power just as evenly? No....course not!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


You are F...d in the head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm still waiting for you to school me on your vast knowledge of CO2 that I don't understand after studying physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics for a few years. But, I can't seem to get you to pin down the knowledge I don't understand or point out the crap the university foisted on me.

Is someone getting defensive after I slammed their fake ignorance for what it was? If you were honest in the first place, I wouldn't have to slam you for it.

I would willingly bet you could draw up a contraption to test how well a firearm could fire bullets at different ranges and conditions towards a simulated human body composed of ballistic gel. Which ever steps you were not sure on, you would research it. Engineers will tinker with stuff until it runs as the demand exists. Just like a scientist will research the SHIT of of something; to make sure they understand it. A business person would study up on elements and ideas that apply to their company's interests. An artist would seek out new techniques and ideas to create that next piece. You know all this the same as myself. So why the theater act?

Either one of us could research the knowledge base known on CO2 as it relates to several different concepts in either of our fields and into other fields of thought. Neither one of us know the exact long term effects of CO2 on the human body as it relates to the human brain ability to function (i.e. neurology). The difference between you and me and those that dont have the background to researching, is the ability to find that vast supply of knowledge.

Now, can we agree that this should go to another thread? Since this is a tangent of a tangent from the main thread idea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


You are F...d in the head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independent-watch-groups-split-on-clinton-foundation/

quote:

George Stephanopoulos was one of the most partisan of partisan warriors ever — just look at "The War Room," the documentary from the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. So it was something of a surprise in 1996 when ABC News hired Stephanopoulos, fresh out of the Clinton White House. And there was some confusion about what the deeply partisan Stephanopoulos' role would be: Analyst? Pundit? Straight news reporter? At the time, I asked ABC about it and was assured Stephanopoulos would be a pundit — like William Kristol, who was then with ABC News — and would not do any news reporting. Here is the opening of a piece I wrote in December 1996 for the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

Last week ABC News announced it has hired departing presidential aide George Stephanopoulos as a contributor to "This Week," "Good Morning America" and other programs. The network seemed delighted with its catch. Mr. Stephanopoulos is "one of the best known and most articulate presidential advisers this country has ever seen," news President Roone Arledge said. "His vast knowledge of Washington politics and policy will be an enormous asset to ABC News."



The announcement created some confusion about Mr. Stephanopoulos's role. A press release issued by ABC last Wednesday stated that he "will serve both as a political analyst and as a correspondent." Vice President of News Joanna Bistany now says Mr. Stephanopoulos will be just an analyst; he will not report news or question guests on "This Week." Ms. Bistany says his role will be similar to that of ABC contributor William Kristol, who was Dan Quayle's chief of staff. "We want a mix of voices," she says, adding that Mr. Stephanopoulos "won't do anything that has any appearance of conflict."

As it turned out, that didn't last long. Just three years later, in 1999, as the 2000 presidential campaign got under way, Stephanopoulos had shed his pundit's role and was reporting on the campaign...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/flashback-1996-why-abc-shouldnt-hire-stephanopoulos/article/2564503

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Where is there a conflict... he is not elected...he has no power... he is an employee and can do as he pleases... and it is not your business or mine.

Butch

quote:

In dozens and dozens of stories and interviews on the Clintons, the chief anchor never mentioned his hefty gifts. In fact, he fiercely questioned author Peter Schweizer last month about his book “Clinton Cash,” making unilateral statements that the book was hogwash.

“As you know, the Clinton campaign says you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors,” Stephanopoulos said. “We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News, found no proof of any kind of direct action. And an independent government ethics expert at the Sunlight Foundation Bill Allison wrote this: ‘There’s no smoking gun. No evidence that the changed policy is based on donations to the foundation. No smoking gun.’ Is there a smoking gun?”

Today, after the revelations, Schweizer said: “Really quite stunned by this, a massive breach of ethical standards. He fairly noted my four months working as a speech writer for George W. Bush. But he didn’t disclose this?” according to Bloomberg News.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/14/next-brian-williams/#ixzz3a9mvR3hY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Where is there a conflict... he is not elected...he has no power... he is an employee and can do as he pleases... and it is not your business or mine.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
I'm still waiting for you to school me on your vast knowledge of CO2 that I don't understand after studying physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and fluid mechanics for a few years. But, I can't seem to get you to pin down the knowledge I don't understand or point out the crap the university foisted on me.

Is someone getting defensive after I slammed their fake ignorance for what it was? If you were honest in the first place, I wouldn't have to slam you for it.