American Politics: The Koch Brother's Integrated Donor Network Alumni' Hall of Shame [280]

While not particularly pertinent to the point of this up, but yes, I am suggesting that. What I asserted concerning Hitler and Stalin (who he later repudiated, Stalin, not Hitler) is documented; he did help Hitler's war effort with full knowledge of what his refined oil was going to be used for. It did, in fact, assist in Hitler killing many European citizens as well as Allied forces.

Having said that, what was just as unethical, but completely in line with who they are, was the established oil company's wrongly contesting his patent and freezing him out of the U.S. market. Fred Koch never gave up his love of Hitler.

That was Fred Koch, the father. The same is very true of Charles and David Koch. The details are in a hub dedicated to just the Kochs ... https://hubpages.com/business/American-Justice-The...

Of course Koch's book paints a different picture, he is being self-serving. What I have offered is from an unbiased source.

In that article, it says

“As the Kochs are confirming, Fred Koch was integrally involved in the creation of a German refinery that Adolf Hitler personally greenlighted. Splitting-hairs by disaggregating which parts of the equipment Fred Koch provided is a distraction,” she said in a statement. “Without the cracking unit, which Fred Koch designed, there would be no refinery.”

Fred Koch met with Hitler on many occasions prior to WW II, I can't remember if Mayer reported meetings during the beginning of WW II. Hitler was not a nice guy, the persecution of the Jews was well under way and Koch purposefully enabled him.

Are you seriously comparing "people counting equipment" with bomber and fighter fueling oil cracking equipment. Did the IBM execs sidle up with Hitler and his minions on a regular basis. Did IBM execs publicly endorse Hitler? Fred Koch did, even during WW II.

In any case, your IBM example only reinforces my dim view of corporate ethics, meaning the lack there of.

However, IBM did not go on to create a new, behind-the-scenes political party like the Koch's have.

So all of the things things that the above crooks and the Koch industries destroying the economy just goes with the territory; that you must accept all of the bad without trying to correct it for the good that corporations admittedly do.

Jack, you seem stuck with the idea that because I think that individual large corporations are, by and large, have proven to be corrupt that corporations are, per se. bad. I don't. A corporate entity is a thing, an idea to further earning a profit. Nothing wrong with that, it is one of the things that lead to economic growth.

But, and it is a big but, corporations are run by fallible human beings. And the bigger the organization they run, the more probable it is that they will become corrupt and abusive ... because they can and there is nobody to stop them. This dynamic has been proven time and again throughout the centuries.

The adage "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Consequently, since one wants the advantages of a corporation, one must do something that will minimize the disadvantages ... and that means government regulation.

But then, you oppose regulating business to reduce corruption, dishonesty, and unethical behavior. So, where does that leave us? In a world where you have a few haves and a massive amount of don't haves with little in between, and where you have a few massive corporations (because there are no regulations preventing them from forcing competitors out of business or simply buying them up) and a plethora of local cottage industries destined to support only their owners. Without proper government regulations, that is what the free-market quickly devolves into ... it's a mathematical certainty.

That my friend is the world you are arguing to have, and this world actually existed back in the days just after feudalism and the heyday of industrialization before gov't regulation finally kicked in.

When you say "There are limits to what government can do and should do. That's where we disagree."; actually we don't. What we disagree on is on what those limits are. For example, should the gov't limit the amount of money a CEO can earn when it goes well beyond the value of the CEO? No, I don't, its none of the gov'ts business.

But, to your EPA example. No, the government doesn't have the right to regulate the coal industry "with the purpose" of driving it out of business. The government "does" have the right to regulate the pollution caused by burning coal. As it happens, coal is such a detriment to the health of the earth, if the coal industry can't adapt and find a way to reduce the harmful emission down to a livable level, then we don't need dirty coal; the earth can't afford dirty coal.

But, to support you a bit, coal is clearly in a class by itself in terms of harm it can do if they can't find a "clean coal" alternative. But, incandescent light bulbs are not. Do they waste bunches of electricity yes, but does it rise to the level of a threat to the environment? I don't think so and the regulation banning their production was wrong.

Many people's livelihoods depended on the horse and buggy as well, but times change and people adapt. The problem is too many people fight against inevitable change and end up leaving themselves in the dust of progress.

The "winners and losers" catchphrase sounds nice, but is essentially meaningless. The government has always been in that business, from the first time in the early 1800s when industry wanted the gov't to step in on their side vs labor. It wasn't until the Great Depression when the time came, government moved to give labor a fair shake.

It is in the governments interest to look ahead at the needs of the country and plan for them. That is why there is a huge R&D budget whose purpose is to do the basic research large corporations stopped doing in the early 1900s (if I remember right). Corporations began looking at basic research only in terms of immediate benefit to the bottom line, instead of the long-term view.

The world is far down the road of having to minimize its dependence on fossil fuel. The problem is the Right and major corporations refuse to accept that fact and plan for a future with much reduced oil available. In the face of such staunch opposition, it is incumbent on a good government to do those things needed to prepare for the future and investing in alternative energy sources. That includes funding start-ups in new technology (something the major corps should be doing themselves, but short-term thinking prevents them from doing so) which time has finally shown was very successful, in spite of such notorious failures of Solyndra; which turned out to be a rare failure of all the projects Bush and Obama funded.

The free-market will not react to global warming until Florida sinks below the waves; it isn't built that way. For the short time a free-market actually works (before the winners use there newly found power to subvert the free-market), it is concerned only with the short-term bottom line. The so-called free market simply does not work in planning for the future. If left to the free-market, the world would have to almost run out of oil before any real innovation takes hold. Before that happens, the barriers to entry in such markets are too high for anybody but established major corporations, and as we have seen, they have no interest in doing anything.

That is why gov't MUST fill that role and "prime the pump" so to speak.

Conservative economic theory, btw, has never worked throughout the history of America. Conservative economics is responsible for some type of financial recession once every 5 years, on average, and a major recession every 8 or 9 years for the period 1815 - 1933. Since 1937, when we changed to Keynesian-based system, we haven't had even ONE major recession. It going back to conservative economics to produce another one in 2008.

I know that is hard to swallow for a conservative, it is nevertheless true. See https://hubpages.com/politics/A-Short-History-of-S...

How am I trying to convince you that the "source of all evil ..."? My beliefs are far from that. What I have come to believe is colored by a lot research, 55 years of observation, and a modicum of understanding of human nature.

Here is what I have observed:

1. Small businesses "tend" to be customer, employee friendly, and somewhat environmentally conscience

2. Medium sized businesses and small corporations tend to be customer friendly, employee neutral, and somewhat environmentally conscience

3 Large and mega-corporations tend to be unfriendly to all three sectors, as well as very susceptible to corruption at the executive level.

4. Unlike the smaller businesses, the motto of large and mega-corporations tends to be "to sell a product (service) of the lowest quality, at the highest price, and with the worst customer service possible that still generates an acceptable profit"

5. Large and mega-corporations tend toward doing "what ever it takes" to eliminate competition, regardless of the ethics and legality.

6. Large and mega-corporations tend toward illegal lobbying and funding donor networks with hundreds of millions in Dark Money

7 Neither 3, 4, 5, and 6 are particularly true of smaller private enterprises

8. Only government, at all levels, is in a position and has the power to mitigate the human and environmental devastation 3, 4, 5, and 6 causes to society and individuals

9. Yes, politicians tend to be susceptible to corruption.

10. The lower in the level of government, the more corruptible they become.

11. The larger the legislature, the less likely individual member corruption will influence the outcome

12. The People are responsible for their own government and all of the good and bad that flows from it.

13. At the end of the day, it is the People who are responsible for the divisive government we have today

14. The use of the word "tend(s)" is purposeful and means "not 100% but some lesser number"; it does not mean "All".

15. Anecdotal evidence does not prove anything

16. One, two, or a few bad apples does not mean the whole barrel is bad or not worthwhile.

17. The more a person tends toward political extremes, the more likely they are to want to bring down the whole because they are unwilling to compromise on ANY part of their personal philosophy; e.g. "throw the baby out with the bath water" or "to cut off your nose to spite your face" syndrome.

Your questions about government agencies falls into the last category. Every one of those agencies you mentioned (save the IRS) have done far more good than they have done bad. Yet because they have done some bad things, you want to throw away all of the good. The IRS deserves special notice as their purpose is not to regulate, just collect your money and follow the law as best they can.

If you are thinking about charitable organization thing, after reading Dark Money, I understand why they were so cautious in awarding tax exempt status to sham charities that front for political organizations as well as why it was "mostly" conservative groups that were scrutinized. For every 1 Left-leaning sham charity there were 10 Right-leaning ones. To pick 20% (2) of the Left-leaning ones and 80% (8) of the Right-leaning ones would be to unfairly pick on the Left. Consequently, the correct number sham charities to investigate would be 10 conservative ones for each liberal ones; which was what the IRS was doing.

Can I demonstrate my 10 to 1 ratio? Yes I can, the more I look into it, the higher that ratio becomes.

IBM - http://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-accused-of-mainfr...

Also, I was one of IBM's guinea pigs who helped perfect PL1 because it didn't work right when initially released, a habit IBM was known for.

That said, I really don't hold IBM up as an example of a bad company, it isn't really; there are way too many others who are far worse.

Reread points 14, 15, and 16 regarding.

Since I am retired Army and retired AF civil service, I can tell you first hand that your comment about motivation is WAY off the mark. As with any organization, including my own company, they are a mixture of motivated, not motivated, and super motivated. I know many more examples of the former and latter; and very few of the middle (unfortunately one of them worked for me; she was ultimately fired)

You are simply buying into the Right-wing propaganda.

Federal organizations which properly perform their missions?

Army

Navy

Air Force

Marines

OSD

OMB

EPA

DFAS

DARPA

Dept of Agriculture

Dept of Labor

Dept of Interior

Small Business Administration

and so on and so on.

Each and every one of those has accomplished "much more good" than bad.

As to "limited". Since that is an illusive term with many meanings all I am left with is that there has not been a government since Washington that met the Right-wings apparent definition of "limited".

But point in fact; "limited" to the Framers meant "limited" powers. There were certain broad powers the central gov't was to have, certain broad powers the States were to have, certain broad powers the national and State governments would share. Both the States and the Federal government have tried to overstep those boundaries and it is the job of the courts to figure it out.

"The private foundations like the Clinton foundation (a Democrat) as recently exposed is corrupt and in fact broke the law " - more Right-wing propaganda. Please provide me the court citations that found this foundation guilty of breaking the law (or are you one of those Americans who doesn't believe in the Constitutions provision that people (and organizations) are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't claim about the 501 (c) (x), I know because I do the research. You will get a picture of it when I publish a hub that I am working on about them.

Any bias I have is the result of research and philosophical belief. Have I been wrong in some of my preconceived ideas before I researched, yep, a few times; but then I admit it when I do.

So cleaning up Dead Lake Erie was a bad thing. Lessening considerably the smog in Los Angeles is a bad thing, is that what you are saying?

If you can prove to me that the books and documentaries are produced by truly unbiased authors, then I will pay attention to them, otherwise, they aren't worth pursuing.

I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, sorry.

Actually, no I don't, so long as it was vetted by someone in the State Dept responsible for making sure there are no shenanigans.

The critical sentence in the link, which supports the claim that Bill got lots of money making speeches, is -

"State Department ethics officials had to sign off on these speaking engagements, but rarely did they say Clinton could not accept payment for a particular speech."

Note the the word 'rarely' was used which implies that at least on one occasion, the ethics watchdog found a problem and would let Clinton accept the money.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/20...

Next is the complete refutation of the Uranium One link. The two key parts of this story are:

1. Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own.

2. "What’s the evidence in Clinton’s favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS [the committee that needs to approve the sale] is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/...

I am not a Clinton apologist, far from it. Instead, I am a pragmatic realist who does a ton of research and knows most of the facts. I am guessing however, any Clinton supporter is a Clinton apologist. While there may be some of those, I am not one of them.

Her making the decision to use a personal server is clearly not part of the vast Right-wing conspiracy; nor was the single GOP investigation into it part of that conspiracy. In fact, so far I haven't seen any evidence yet that the conspiracy (which does exist) is taking advantage of that mistake.

I'll need to find it again, but in her book, Jane Meyer quoted 'and this is where my memory fails me' one of the main players freely and publically admitted that they were the right-wing conspiracy HRC is afraid of.

You say "he and her aides and her friend Sidney Blumenthal miss handled classified documents over her 4 years at the State Department. ".

Where are your sources to verify the accusation the Right so causally tosses out. So far, no mishandling has been uncovered yet; although I imagine there is an investigation as to how what ended up to, after the fact, be on HRC's server. So far, she is telling the truth that no information that was marked Classified was sent to or from her.

As many have observed before, Petraeus "knowingly" provided classified data to his mistress who was not authorized to have it - that is a world of difference and it is a big red-herring to use it.

You are falling in the political extremist trap, presuming guilt before it is proven, aren't you. (I phrase it that way because the far end of the political spectrum on either end exhibit that characteristic).

Petraeus pled guilty, didn't he.

Exactly how many Republican investigations do you need clearing Clinton on Benghazi to convince you she had nothing to do with it? So far there have been 7, count them 7 investigations led by your brother conservatives which have cleared Clinton. But, for reasons known only to you and God, you won't believe them and insist on spending millions more tax payers dollars trying to find something that is simply not there.

This kind of conduct is why it is very hard to take conservative claims seriously. You really need to throw away your script, bumper stickers, and sound bites and begin thinking for yourself; you are clearly an intelligent guy, use it, do the independent research.

Where do you fall on my RWA survey, by the way?

Further, Charles Bartel (from you article) is not credible. He believes PBO is not an American, that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House, and that PBO personally started ISIL. Please find a source that is neutral.

Yes, Yes. Yes. Yes. No, Sometimes, Most of the time. Yes.

Everybody is biased to one degree or another. But, when a source always takes an extreme side and espouses stupid things like birther and the other off-the-wall myths and fabrications such as Bertel and his associates promote, then they become irrelevant as an information source on any topic. None of those organizations and people you mention, even Fox News, MSNBC and Huffington Post don't. But, you know who does:

Rush Limbaugh

Glen Beck

Drudge

Breitbart

Bertal

National Review

Washington Free Beacon

Sean Hannity

Ann Coulter

and a host of other Right-wing and Left-wing blogs and screeds.

There aren't any Left-wing examples is because, frankly, don't pay any attention to them and very few are popular enough to have made it to my radar. I only name those is because they are all over the news and make me shudder.

Who do I pay attention to as news sources?

CNN

POTUS (Sirius/XM)

and occasionally the Washington Post.

When somebody makes extreme claims, like global warming is a myth, I rarely, if ever, believe it until I check it out, and that includes the three sources I just mentioned.

While will use anecdotes to highlight a point, I don't use them as proof of anything; if there are several of them, then that MIGHT indicate a trend. Only masses of properly analyzed data or mounds of believable circumstantial evidence from relatively neutral sources (such as Dark Money).

Statements like "President Obama has been the most divisive president in modern American politics ..."; which is patently false on its extreme face.

- PBO is not responsible for 10,000 dead Native Americans like President Jackson is (read about Trail of Tears).

- PBO is not responsible for dragging America into major economic downturns like Presidents W. Bush, Herbert Hoover, Grant, and several others

- PBO didn't lead America into stupid, needless wars like President W. Bush did

- PBO didn't oversee Dredd Scott; President Buchannan did

- PBO did pull America out of a depression and kept it at a major recession

- PBO did kill Osama bin Ladin

- PBO did decimate al Qaeda with drone strikes (Bush did not)

- PBO, more than any other President except Lincoln and Johnson presided over the largest leap forward in human rights than any other Presidents.

- In the opinion of those who rank these things, PBO is 17th out of 43 (only two of these organizations included him, even though his term isn't over; the rest will wait until his term is over); 17th is clearly not last (or the most divisive). Nothing changed, We have millions of refugees from the Middle East because G W Bush needlessly and dangerously invaded Iraq and then did a terrible job because he didn't understand who he was fighting or what needed to be done. Then he leaves the makings of ISIS by not securing a Status of Forces Agreement that left large amounts of American troops in Iraq (that was Bush, not PBO) to influence the sectarian Moliki gov't he helped put in place. BTW, 13 rating organizations have an average rating of 34 out of 42 for G W Bush, well below PBO.

That is "provable" history and not the myth the Right-wing wants us to believe.

Here is how effective Right-wing propaganda is:

29% of Louisiana Republicans believe it was Obama who was slow to respond to ... KATRINA! (Only 28% blame Bush)

30% of Republicans in general and 34% of conservatives think Obama is a Muslim

An astounding 43% of Republicans (in 2011) thought that Obama was born in a foreign country.

Let's see, terrorists attacked the compound they were at and killed them; people seem to forget that in their hatred for Clinton.

1. Worse, but is that because of PBO or an increasingly vitriolic Right-wing?

2. Much more respected than it was in 2008

3. Much better economy, especially when compared to Bush's Great Recession. But, in terms of growth 2001 - 2008, much better. Unemployment, the same, GDP - much higher in real terms, uninterrupted job growth - much longer, and so on and so on

4. Let me ask you this, would the debt have been anywhere this high had not the GOP caused the Great Recession? The recession has driven about 75% of the debt increase. Also, the debt was increasing dramatically before the recession due to Bush's tax cut's, Iraq war, and poor growth 2005 - 2008

5. Not as safe because of the Bush caused ISIS. ISIS exists for three reasons, and only three reasons: 1) the Bush invasion of Iraq, 2) Bush's incompetence in prosecuting the war once he started it (because he never took the time to figure out who he chose to fight and how they tick), and 3) signing a status of forces agreement that didn't call for leaving large quantities of troops after we pulled out. Like the recession before it, Obama was handed ISIS by the previous president.

You are quite correct that his promise of hope and change did not materialize, but look at why ... the Conservative's promise, which they kept, to stop it from happening. It is much easier to stop something than to make it happen. It is harder still to make it happen when someone is actively trying to stop you.

As to what you think is the truth regarding the attack at Benghazi, please read:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline...

and

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/20...

As to whether and how the administration characterized the attacks as terror, keep in mind, the administration must report only what they KNOW, not what they assume to be true. Everybody else, on the other hand, can say what they damn well please regardless of the actual facts known at the time it is said.