Let's start

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How do you fit a billion dollars in a mattress?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

big denominations.

i answered your question, can you answer mine? Since you said that wealth isn’t a problem in the hands of liberals who are charitable, arebtoubalso OK with wealthbin the hands of conservatives who are charitable? Or do you only give that pass to liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

big denominations.

i answered your question, can you answer mine? Since you said that wealth isn’t a problem in the hands of liberals who are charitable, arebtoubalso OK with wealthbin the hands of conservatives who are charitable? Or do you only give that pass to liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is george soros in that camp? or labor unions, or hollywood?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

is george soros in that camp? or labor unions, or hollywood?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not really.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well with all that logic, how can i disagree?

george soros doesn’t spent big $$ to shape and expand the democratic party? Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

well with all that logic, how can i disagree?

george soros doesn’t spent big $$ to shape and expand the democratic party? Really?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Koch Bros have been working since the 1960s to shape US culture. I think Soros has been much more limited politically supporting some progressive causes over the last 15 years or so. Where he has been very active politically is donating to undermine communism in Eastern Europe. Fox News loves baselessly blaming him for just about everything though. They’re not quite the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The Koch Bros have been working since the 1960s to shape US culture. I think Soros has been much more limited politically supporting some progressive causes over the last 15 years or so. Where he has been very active politically is donating to undermine communism in Eastern Europe. Fox News loves baselessly blaming him for just about everything though. They’re not quite the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

move on.org isn’t designed to effect change here in the us?

foxnews slams soros. The Democrats in congress slam the koch brothers. Big, big difference.

you’re right, they’re
not the same. The Koch brothers aren’t unrepentant Nazi collaborators. As a teen, Soros helped the nazis to save himself, which no one can blame him for. the shicking part, was he gave an interview as an adult, and stated that he had no regrets over what he did. that makes him very special.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's funny coming from a radical leftist...who has funded your engineered radicalization?


TIME magazine

By PHILIP ELLIOTT October 3, 2018

Charles Koch is known for his activism on conservative and libertarian causes, but a new report reveals that he’s also given more than $1 billion to civic and philanthropic groups.

Forbes magazine got that number after tallying lifetime donations for the first time as part of its annual list of the world’s richest individuals, published Wednesday. With a $53.5 billion fortune, Koch was at No. 7 on that list, tied with his brother, David.

“I do not believe ‘sum total’ is the most effective measure for evaluating my philanthropy,” Charles Koch told TIME in a statement. “Those results — which are real and measurable — are the true indicator of my philanthropy.”

Koch advisers say the overwhelming bulk of the donations has gone to civic and philanthropic groups, not the political ones he’s better known for. Last year, 95% of his personal giving went to educational programs and community groups that deal with persistent poverty.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don’t have a problem with charity, the issue people have with the Koch Bros is how they’ve also used their money to almost single handedly engineer, significantly a more radical Right.

I don’t see Gates or Buffet in this camp.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

it’s charity when liberals do it, sinister when conservatives do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You've worded this in an almost convincing way as to make it appear that you're actually pointing out what is objectively wrong with how the Koch's spend their money.

You start out with a magnanimous nod toward some general notion by saying you don't have a problem with charity. But in the same sentence you don't actually liken the Koch's donations to charity, but more as a "use" of money to create some form of, presumably harmful, radicalness.

But a careful reading which cuts through the phony self righteous high tone of what you say reveals, merely, that you don't like nor approve of what they do. Which elicits, in a rational mind, a "so what"?

seems you think charitable donations and political donations are the same

you tend to do that alot


https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php