Why is it that...

B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You are terribly misinformed

Do you know how much money the Koch brothers have spent on conservative politicians political campaigns in an attempt to influence politics?
Click to expand...
All very wealthy business men do, so what?

It is fact that they have argued against their own interest on many occasions.

They take government subsides because not doing so would mean they have to go out of business.

When comparing people like the Koch guys to guys like Soros, at least the Koch brothers are Americans.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
All very wealthy business men do, so what?

It is fact that they have argued against their own interest on many occasions.

They take government subsides because not doing so would mean they have to go out of business.

When comparing people like the Koch guys to guys like Soros, at least the Koch brothers are Americans.
Click to expand...
Not all wealthy business men spend millions each election cycle buying politicians to influence American politics, that's absurd. A small minority do, and it works fantastic

They would not go out of business if they refused government subsidies, again, absurd;

Koch Industries total revenue in 2012 exceeded $115 Billion, David and Charles Koch are both worth $40.6 Billion a piece

They bought conservative politicians for a fraction of the price of the return on their investment and those politicians voted on legislation in favor of big business interests, like Koch Industries
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Not all wealthy business men spend millions each election cycle buying politicians to influence American politics, that's absurd. A small minority do, and it works fantastic

They would not go out of business if they refused government subsidies, again, absurd;

Koch Industries total revenue in 2012 exceeded $115 Billion, David and Charles Koch are both worth $40.6 Billion a piece

They bought conservative politicians for a fraction of the price of the return on their investment and those politicians voted on legislation in favor of big business interests, like Koch Industries
Click to expand...
Up until recently, like a week or two ago, they were limited to donating what, around $100k per year to politicians? That is pocket change to guys like that.

The Koch guys have repeatedly tried to end government subsidies for ethanol, for instance. They are involved in the industry and take those subsides, but if they didn't their employees would lose their jobs as their competition would have a decided market advantage for taking the subsidy.

You do understand the reality of economics, that if someone can bring something to market for cheaper, they can sell it for cheaper and make a profit where you realize a loss?

They aren't the devils you think they are. I think you legitimately believe this, but you have been mislead by hufpost types who have an agenda.

I was ignorant of the Koch guys until a few months ago. I started looking into them. At first I found all the evil stuff you seem to relish. But if you dug deeper and went to unbiased sources, followed the money, you'd see they are decent guys, you might disagree with about many things, but would probably agree with more than you think.

They are very socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Always have been.
 
killemsoftly

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
yes they are humanitarians. they just named a high school after them. cock high. I'd like to go to cock high. perhaps they have a great course in sophistry 101, disinformation 100 or advanced social engineering 203.
we should abolish govt and let cocks run the country. if the business of america is business who the fuck needs govt?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Up until recently, like a week or two ago, they were limited to donating what, around $100k per year to politicians? That is pocket change to guys like that.

The Koch guys have repeatedly tried to end government subsidies for ethanol, for instance. They are involved in the industry and take those subsides, but if they didn't their employees would lose their jobs as their competition would have a decided market advantage for taking the subsidy.

You do understand the reality of economics, that if someone can bring something to market for cheaper, they can sell it for cheaper and make a profit where you realize a loss?

They aren't the devils you think they are. I think you legitimately believe this, but you have been mislead by hufpost types who have an agenda.

I was ignorant of the Koch guys until a few months ago. I started looking into them. At first I found all the evil stuff you seem to relish. But if you dug deeper and went to unbiased sources, followed the money, you'd see they are decent guys, you might disagree with about many things, but would probably agree with more than you think.

They are very socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Always have been.
Click to expand...
I can't understand how any American citizen would argue in favor of allowing wealthy individuals to influence American politics. 90% of Americans agree on this issue, you are arguing in that 10%. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I can't understand how any American citizen would argue in favor of allowing wealthy individuals to influence American politics. 90% of Americans agree on this issue, you are arguing in that 10%. Why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers
Click to expand...
Don't give me wiki for something controversial. There are thousands of unclebuck like folks out there who's life mission is spreading left propaganda. That involves demonizing the Koch brothers.

I, like you, wish they would stay out of it, but they aren't, and the law of the land says they can, so as far as what these guys are really all about is concerned, they are a force for good, rather than bad.

Guys like you stand up and protest cancer research for children because Koch paid for it, why do you want to be lumped in with that?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Don't give me wiki for something controversial. There are thousands of unclebuck like folks out there who's life mission is spreading left propaganda.
Click to expand...
you sounded like kynes last night, and now like desert dude tonight.

care to give me some examples of this "left propaganda"?
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you sounded like kynes last night, and now like desert dude tonight.

care to give me some examples of this "left propaganda"?
Click to expand...
Ok, fine, one example.

You and I were arguing once about black people and if they were more violent.

I pointed out actual crime data gathered by the FBI that indicated that the majority (i think it was) of violence is committed by blacks, despite being under 20% of the population. Furthermore, they make up over 2/3 of the prison population.

You found some left wing, african american apologists website that said something like "White people make up less than 30% of the victims of black crime."

This has nothing to do with the point, and either you're stupid or you know that. So that leaves me to believe your objective isn't truth, but an agenda.

That is a made up piece of business that has no bearing on the point. It sounds good and it is confusing.

A red herring if there ever was one. Completely irrelevant, and confusing, the only purpose of which is to shield the truth from someones eyes so they believe in you.

You have no substance. You would sell your wife into prostitution to guarantee leftist victories in all branches of government.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Ok, fine, one example.

You and I were arguing once about black people and if they were more violent.

I pointed out actual crime data gathered by the FBI that indicated that the majority (i think it was) of violence is committed by blacks, despite being under 20% of the population. Furthermore, they make up over 2/3 of the prison population.

You found some left wing, african american apologists website that said something like "White people make up less than 30% of the victims of black crime."

This has nothing to do with the point, and either you're stupid or you know that. So that leaves me to believe your objective isn't truth, but an agenda.

That is a made up piece of business that has no bearing on the point. It sounds good and it is confusing.

A red herring if there ever was one. Completely irrelevant, and confusing, the only purpose of which is to shield the truth from someones eyes so they believe in you.

You have no substance. You would sell your wife into prostitution to guarantee leftist victories in all branches of government.
Click to expand...
oh, you're referring to that failed argument of yours that led to you starting multiple threads about. let's go over that.

you made a claim that blacks committed a staggering number of RANDOM acts of violence against whites. you cited some white supremacist publication that advised parents to tell their kids to leave the beach or amusement park if too many blacks were around. i remember this well.

then i cited the FBI statistics to show that blacks committed crimes against whites at a lower rate than would happen through random chance alone. i even cited "the color of deception" to back up the FI stats. "the color of deception" was a debunking of "the color of crime", a white supremacist publication put out by jared taylor and american renaissance.

what you call "left propaganda" is simple mathematical truth. whites makes up a lower percentage of victims of black crime than random chance would dictate. that does not even tell us how much lower the amount of RANDOM crime is, since RANDOM acts make up a smaller subset of the entire set of crimes.

http://www.timwise.org/2004/11/race-crime-and-sloppy-social-science/

To begin with, the white victim totals in the Justice Department’s victimization data include those termed Hispanic by the Census, since nine in ten Latino/as are considered racially white by government record-keepers. Since Latinos and Latinas tend to live closer to blacks than non-Hispanic whites, this means that many “white” victims of “black crime” are Latino or Latina, and that in any given year, the majority of black crime victims would be people of color, not whites.

But even if we compute the white totals as Taylor does, without breaking out Hispanic victims of “black crime,” his position is without merit. In 2002, whites, including Latinos, were about 81.5 percent of the population (3). That same year, whites (including Latinos) were 51 percent of the victims of violent crimes committed by blacks, meaning that whites were victimized by blacks less often than would have been expected by random chance, given the extent to which whites were available to be victimized (4).
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
i believe this is the publication bigotednbushy posted which sparked the whole thread, which is probably deleted now:




i'm glad that bignbushy the white supremacist is on kynes' and desertdude's side, not mine.

if he respected me, i would be worried.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Except for I never said that blacks were going around just attacking all kinds of white people, just that blacks commit a lot of violence.

I accept your stat as true, I just find it irrelevant, and if anything supportive of my point that blacks are more violet.

While most black attackers don't have a white victim, a disproportionate large number of white victims have black attackers.

Blacks are the leading attackers of whites and blacks, but most of their victims are fellow blacks.

Your stats and information does nothing to address this, you gloss it over, and it is true.

what you have is a cleaver way to dismiss data that only fools people who are ideological driven, and dumb.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i believe this is the publication bigotednbushy posted which sparked the whole thread, which is probably deleted now:




i'm glad that bignbushy the white supremacist is on kynes' and desertdude's side, not mine.

if he respected me, i would be worried.
Click to expand...
Look at the author. A responsible respected journalist, prior to publication of course.

Solid advice I'd say.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
BigNBushy said:
Except for I never said that blacks were going around just attacking all kinds of white people, just that blacks commit a lot of violence.
Click to expand...
yes you did, you lying skinhead fatass.

that's why you posted an article advising people to leave the beach if too many blacks showed up. you even made a point which i remember clearly about blacks attacking whites RANDOMLY. hence why i rebutted your retarded and false racist attacks.

BigNBushy said:
blacks are more violet.
Click to expand...
violence correlates most with socioeconomic status regardless of race, not race.

a lot of blacks tend to be poorer due in part to the institutional racism of racist assholes like you, among many other factors.
 
D

Dyna Ryda

Well-Known Member
Somebody is confused. If you take a dick up your ass that makes you gay. Nothing wrong with being gay, don't deny the feelings inside.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yes you did, you lying skinhead fatass.

that's why you posted an article advising people to leave the beach if too many blacks showed up. you even made a point which i remember clearly about blacks attacking whites RANDOMLY. hence why i rebutted your retarded and false racist attacks.



violence correlates most with socioeconomic status regardless of race, not race.

a lot of blacks tend to be poorer due in part to the institutional racism of racist assholes like you, among many other factors.
Click to expand...
Blacks do randomly attack whites, knock out game.

You do realize your argument can be stated as "black people are so violent, although they are the number one cause of violence against white people, that makes up a very small percentage of the total violence they commit."

Great argument. Red herring!
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Dyna Ryda said:
Somebody is confused. If you take a dick up your ass that makes you gay. Nothing wrong with being gay, don't deny the feelings inside.
Click to expand...
I've had a dick in my ass, mouth and hands. Cum in my mouth, face and rectum. I've also been on the giving end of all of the above. I did it all voluntary, no coercion or payment. I'm not one bit gay either.

What you said is simply not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top