The wealthy Republican donors, the Koch brothers, are upset by comments made by actor Zach Galifianakis. Galifianakis stars with Will Ferrell in a new comedy "The Campaign" that also includes characters known as the "Motch" brothers.
The Motch brothers in the movie are wealthy donors who attempt to manipulate the campaign for their personal benefit. Sounds an awful lot like David and Charles Koch, right? If what they do wasn't so despicable, it might actually be comical. The comedy is best left to the professionals, though. And the job of President is also best left to someone who is not a GOP puppet willing to say and do anything for the seat just to provide favors once in office to the crooks who got him there.
When asked about the Koch's in an interview about the new film, Galifianakis replied, "I disagree with everything they do. They are creepy and there is no way around that. It's not freedom what they are doing."
The Koch's then retaliated by attempting to criticize the actor's performance in one of the most successful comedies in recent years, "The Hangover, Part II." That's all they have? Of course. They cannot criticize him on his values because they are leaps and bounds above the "values" of the Koch brothers and their Republican chums.
The real-life Kochs just held a fundraiser for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (aka GOP puppet mentioned above). The event was in Southampton last month. The area is home to some unscrupulous Wall Street moguls including David Ganek, accused of being on an insider trading call. He happens to live right next door to David Koch. How nice.
Howard Stern also lives nearby. Bet he was not invited to their little shin-dig. Although, it would have been really fun if he were. In fact, they should invite Howard Stern, Will Ferrell, and Zach Galifianakis to their next event. That should be newsworthy.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 63
Early in the "Conservapedia" article on Soros comes this sentence fragment: "Soros, a reputed psychopath..."
As proof of this claim there are three footnotes linked to the statement. The first footnote links to a conservative blog called "American Thinker", which is just an opinion piece from a fellow conservative traveller. The second links to Yahoo Finance but makes no mention of Soros. The third links to a definition of psychopath, again without any mention of Soros. To the conservative mind calling someone a psychopath and having another like-minded person call him that and then defining the word amounts to evidence that he must be a psychopath.
Much of conservative thinking today goes along these lines. Some blogger writes a hate filled opinion screed and then gets quoted as though he were an empirical source of evidence by a conservative broadcaster and within hours every conservative in the country is walking around repeating the first unsubstantiated opinion as though it were handed down in stone from Mount Sinai. This is how the birther nonsense started and was perpetuated. It is how all the racist, extremist accusations against Obama and other non-conservative figures have become gospel to the movement.
It displays a lack of critical thinking. If something is repeated often enough it becomes an accepted truth, a truism that conservative strategists have been relying on. Sadly for many conservatives today "often enough" translates as twice.
“Happiest year of my life, the German occupation” -George Soros
"So I had no sense of guilt." -George Soros
“I have had a messianic illusion since childhood ” -George Soros
“when you try to improve society…adverse consequences occur…” -George Soros
“The main obstacle for a new world order is America” -George Soros
“An orderly decline of the dollar is desirable.” -George Soros
...maybe even some kind of a "role model", huh?
Most everywhere Soros, his foundations or his investing have gone, trouble has followed. He’s helped foment revolutions, undermined national currencies and funded radicals around the world. Soros has been convicted of insider dealing in France and fined $3 million, fined another $2 million in his native Hungary. His “foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws†and his investing strategy has been targeted for harming several national currencies.
Even his support for higher education raises huge red flags. Soros has contributed more than $400 million to colleges and universities, including money to most prominent institutions in the United States. He also helped establish Central European University which, in turn, uses its resources to promote his personal goal of an “open society.â€
Here in the United States, Soros money provides the foundation for liberal organizations promoting everything from gay marriage and drug legalization to anti-death penalty strategies. While his charitable giving goes to liberal organizations with close ties to the Democratic Party, his political giving goes almost entirely to Democrats.
That’s not the story the broadcast networks have been telling about Soros for the past five years. There were 29 mentions of Soros during that time but only one gave any hint at trouble, and that was merely to mention he was “still known as the man who broke the Bank of England.†But ABC followed it up with: “That was all legal.†Only a sex scandal with a 28-year-old Brazilian actress gave Soros any negative publicity at all.
Special Report: George Soros: Godfather of the Left
But I don't think the Koch brothers are that bad.
We know how bad Soros is and we never hear anything from you progressives about the evils of Soros.
It's about him being progressive and supporting many of the ideals that you agree with.
And?
SWEET!
The common claim to the contrary is without merit or supporting data.
No it doesn't. You use specious arguments. When one looks at the whole story you are proven wrong.
"The common claim to the contrary is without merit or supporting data."
LOL! As you tried to counter my position with no proof! LOL!
As for the claim that Republicans increase the debt more than Democrats, you will not be able to prove that because for much of our history the government has been divided. Very seldom has one party simultaneously controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate for any significant length of time. Also, debt growth under one president/congress is often actually the result of actions taken by a preceding president/congress. Republicans certainly can't be blamed for all the expenditures relating to the Vietnam War, WWI, WWII, and the Korean War that added to the debt during the 20th century and Democrats can't be blamed for expenditures relating to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that added to the debt.
"Facts And Figures Of Job Creation, Spending, And GDP Growth In 10 Bullet Points"
Here is why people like Rory and R.F. don't include links to their sources:
They make statements like the following:
"7. Most recently, private employers have added an average of about 900 jobs per month since Obama’s inauguration. During the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, private payrolls shrank by an average of 6,700 jobs per month."
Every one knows that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 was the cause of most of those job losses during the Bush administration.
Like I said, You use specious arguments. When one looks at the whole story you are proven wrong..
But it is quite realistic to exclude periods that were markedly dissimilar: before income tax, before American ascension on the world stage.
" ... it is quite realistic to exclude ... markedly dissimilar: before income tax, ..."
Harding and Coolidge were in office when we had the progressive income tax. Were you under the impression that FDR introduced that? Well, he didn't. The progressive income tax was introduced long before he moved into the Oval Office.
"History indicates otherwise. Growth has been stronger by far under Democratic presidents than Republicans."
You were clearly trying to say that that has always been the case even though the figures you later use ("Since 1932 ...") leave out more than 70 years from the time Lincoln became the first Republican president. You left out the period I cited (the 1920s) and then chose a period when we had one war after another, which would have caused a huge increase in the production of war materials, thus heavily influencing the GDP. And you cannot use the excuse that the 1920s were "markedly dissimilar: ... before income tax" because that is simply incorrect. People DID pay income tax long before 1932.
The world has many more shades of colour than merely black and white, you know.
No they never did say they love Soros...It's just that since he is one of them they won't talk bad about him.
Above I asked why in the world Democrats work for Koch Brothers if they're so bad. And why do their unions invest in Koch stock? I've been asking that since Wisconsin and get no answers.
Can you give us an example?
And Rush was absolutely right that she was a slut.
Wow!
And the shill that the lib/progs put forth? Come on again. If she was having that much sex (that she had to spend that much on condoms) then she was a slut. What else could one call her?
Marilyn, your willingness to condemn women so easily is very unappealing. You must have some serious issues with self-esteem.