Did Public Television Commit Self-Censorship to Appease Billionaire Funder David Koch?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No, you FUCKING RETARD. I did not say the war was not immoral. And i made NO MENTION of it as a lie or non-lie. A cursory reading of my posts with any greater intelligence than grade school level reading would in fact reveal that i said nothing th sort. Further i directly called the profiting off innocent deaths immoral.

So stop putting words in my mouth. This is why i can’t take you seriously. It’s not even that you disagree on policy or news, it’s that you avoid the questions asked by me and others–it only took you 2 bleeding pages to answer my ONE question after numerous evasions–and that you put words in my mouth either through deliberate intent or just plain trolling and i dont appreciate it.

Once again, if you want to be taken seriously, 1) dont avoid questions for pages or repeated posts 2) dont put words in people’s mouths 3) dont deliberately mis-take points written by others that you are fully aware of[/quote]

No YOU FUCKING MORON you claim that it’s conspiratorial to say that war is supported by the U.S. for benefit (yes you said that in your reply-go look)
But yet give no evidence that the Iraqi war was not started on the basis of lies. So what is your contention of the Iraqi war? Was it moral or immoral and what were the reasons it was started? You admit that wars are immoral but no condemnation for the foreign policy of the country you live in. Just vague descriptions of the messiness of geo-politcal games. [/quote]

No. I said it was conspiratorial to suggest that the primary reason we supported THAT WAR was for defense contractors to get rich. Learn to read. “That War”. and “Primary Reason.” Don’t improperly generalize my statements. The entire fucking point of my post was that you ignored the geopolitical atmosphere and motives that prompted us to form almost ALL of our foreign policy decisions for 50+ years in order to make some dumbass conjecture AND that foreign policy is almost by definition is a game of national selfishness (ie: not altruistic, like I mentioned). Just not for the primary “reason” you suggested.

We were not talking about the Iraqi war. You specifically brought up the Indonesian Occupation, so stay the fuck on topic (even though this is your 3rd or 4th detour in attempt to avoid the original topic). I responded specifically to the Indonesion Occupation. Stay on topic or give up.

62

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?

63

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?[/quote]

You want to regulate what people can or can’t do concerning their employment and/or service as a public official.

Not only does this completely and in every way violate man’s natural rights, but it is, without a doubt, the most insane abuse of government power ever imagined.

The government has no power to dictate people’s lives to this degree.

It is ridiculous because it is insane… Not only do you want an entity, government, that has proven over and over again for 250+ years it can’t appropriately handle the power it has, to have more power over things like production, healthcare and economic markets, but now you want this government to control how individuals are allowed to live their life…

64

What if I worked for an LLC? An LP? How about a PC?

So the kid that worked for Burger King to make his way through college can’t run for congress?

65

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
No, you FUCKING RETARD. I did not say the war was not immoral. And i made NO MENTION of it as a lie or non-lie. A cursory reading of my posts with any greater intelligence than grade school level reading would in fact reveal that i said nothing th sort. Further i directly called the profiting off innocent deaths immoral.

So stop putting words in my mouth. This is why i can’t take you seriously. It’s not even that you disagree on policy or news, it’s that you avoid the questions asked by me and others–it only took you 2 bleeding pages to answer my ONE question after numerous evasions–and that you put words in my mouth either through deliberate intent or just plain trolling and i dont appreciate it.

Once again, if you want to be taken seriously, 1) dont avoid questions for pages or repeated posts 2) dont put words in people’s mouths 3) dont deliberately mis-take points written by others that you are fully aware of[/quote]

No YOU FUCKING MORON you claim that it’s conspiratorial to say that war is supported by the U.S. for benefit (yes you said that in your reply-go look)
But yet give no evidence that the Iraqi war was not started on the basis of lies. So what is your contention of the Iraqi war? Was it moral or immoral and what were the reasons it was started? You admit that wars are immoral but no condemnation for the foreign policy of the country you live in. Just vague descriptions of the messiness of geo-politcal games. [/quote]

No. I said it was conspiratorial to suggest that the primary reason we supported THAT WAR was for defense contractors to get rich. Learn to read. “That War”. and “Primary Reason.” Don’t improperly generalize my statements. The entire fucking point of my post was that you ignored the geopolitical atmosphere and motives that prompted us to form almost ALL of our foreign policy decisions for 50+ years in order to make some dumbass conjecture AND that foreign policy is almost by definition is a game of national selfishness (ie: not altruistic, like I mentioned). Just not for the primary “reason” you suggested.

We were not talking about the Iraqi war. You specifically brought up the Indonesian Occupation, so stay the fuck on topic (even though this is your 3rd or 4th detour in attempt to avoid the original topic). I responded specifically to the Indonesion Occupation. Stay on topic or give up.[/quote]
Okay if it really makes a difference to you we will specifically talk about Indonesia. Even though the reasons for going to war-most of the time - are for pretty much the same reasons.

When did I say that the primary reason for going to war was the defense contractors. They make tons of money when selling arms to countries even though those said countries(Indonesia) use the weapons for genocide. Big oil makes tons of money to. And since East Timor has great oil reserves…

Yes our reasons for going to war are ostensibly for altruistic reasons but they are not the real reasons. And the press keeps a lid on the scandal. Can you tell me why Pol Pot’s genocide was widely reported on but the East Timor massacre wasn’t ? Even though they were both going on at the same time.

66

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What if I worked for an LLC? An LP? How about a PC?

So the kid that worked for Burger King to make his way through college can’t run for congress?

[/quote]

Man you are more retarded than I thought. I guess I need to spell everything out for you. If you work for Phizer you can’t go and work for the FDA and visa versa. There now do you understand?

67

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?[/quote]

You want to regulate what people can or can’t do concerning their employment and/or service as a public official.

Not only does this completely and in every way violate man’s natural rights, but it is, without a doubt, the most insane abuse of government power ever imagined.

The government has no power to dictate people’s lives to this degree.

It is ridiculous because it is insane… Not only do you want an entity, government, that has proven over and over again for 250+ years it can’t appropriately handle the power it has, to have more power over things like production, healthcare and economic markets, but now you want this government to control how individuals are allowed to live their life…

[/quote]
Not insane. Not when this impedes on others knowing the truth and making informed choices. To do otherwise would be trampling on the public’s right to know and being taken advantage of for mere profit.

68

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What if I worked for an LLC? An LP? How about a PC?

So the kid that worked for Burger King to make his way through college can’t run for congress?

[/quote]

Man you are more retarded than I thought. I guess I need to spell everything out for you. If you work for Phizer you can’t go and work for the FDA and visa versa. There now do you understand?[/quote]

Personal attack, always the pinnacle of a valid argument.

What is Phizer was organized as an LP, and the person who worked for the FDA was invested in a company that is a limited partner in Phizer?

69

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?[/quote]

You want to regulate what people can or can’t do concerning their employment and/or service as a public official.

Not only does this completely and in every way violate man’s natural rights, but it is, without a doubt, the most insane abuse of government power ever imagined.

The government has no power to dictate people’s lives to this degree.

It is ridiculous because it is insane… Not only do you want an entity, government, that has proven over and over again for 250+ years it can’t appropriately handle the power it has, to have more power over things like production, healthcare and economic markets, but now you want this government to control how individuals are allowed to live their life…

[/quote]
Not insane. Not when this impedes on others knowing the truth and making informed choices. To do otherwise would be trampling on the public’s right to know and being taken advantage of for mere profit.[/quote]

So you are okay with government controlling people’s lives then? To the degree in which they can dictate where and who you can work for?

70

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?[/quote]

You want to regulate what people can or can’t do concerning their employment and/or service as a public official.

Not only does this completely and in every way violate man’s natural rights, but it is, without a doubt, the most insane abuse of government power ever imagined.

The government has no power to dictate people’s lives to this degree.

It is ridiculous because it is insane… Not only do you want an entity, government, that has proven over and over again for 250+ years it can’t appropriately handle the power it has, to have more power over things like production, healthcare and economic markets, but now you want this government to control how individuals are allowed to live their life…

[/quote]
Not insane. Not when this impedes on others knowing the truth and making informed choices. To do otherwise would be trampling on the public’s right to know and being taken advantage of for mere profit.[/quote]

So you are okay with government controlling people’s lives then? To the degree in which they can dictate where and who you can work for?[/quote]
So you are okay with corporations controlling peoples lives? To the degree that they can keep the truth from you?

Yes conflicts of interest need to be curtailed for obvious reasons.

71

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Man you are more retarded than I thought. I guess I need to spell everything out for you. If you work for Phizer you can’t go and work for the FDA and visa versa. There now do you understand?[/quote]

I thought I was done with this thread, but you have brought up an interesting point. In order for me to form an opinion on this, I will need you to tell me what Phizer is and define visa versa.

72

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
If you work for a corporation you are forbidden to go into government employment and visa versa. [/quote]

LOL

So ridiculous…

[/quote]

What is so ridiculous about forbidding this obvious conflict of interest?[/quote]

You want to regulate what people can or can’t do concerning their employment and/or service as a public official.

Not only does this completely and in every way violate man’s natural rights, but it is, without a doubt, the most insane abuse of government power ever imagined.

The government has no power to dictate people’s lives to this degree.

It is ridiculous because it is insane… Not only do you want an entity, government, that has proven over and over again for 250+ years it can’t appropriately handle the power it has, to have more power over things like production, healthcare and economic markets, but now you want this government to control how individuals are allowed to live their life…

[/quote]

The government by the people should not allow obvious conflicts of interest to be lawful.

The government run part of healthcare in this country is doing much better than out pay for fee service but yet you trust the corporations who have obviously proven in this arena to be completely incompetent to be in charge. The government is doing a much better job in curtailing costs. You trust corporations who charge twice as much for healthcare than anywhere in the world and is the number one reason why people have to file for bankruptcy. just so the boogeyman doesn’t step in. You my friend are married to an ideology and have to mold the truth anyway you can in order for the ideology not to be questioned. Sincerely sad and all too common.

Yes it should be regulated. There are good regulations everywhere. You do not have the freedom to go through a red light even though you may be late for an appointment . Is that not a good regulation? So why can someone who works for Phizer be able to go and work for the FDA? Because the freedom of choice of this particular individual is more important than the consequences it can bring. You have the choice of working for either the FDA or Big Pharma but not both. Seems reasonable and simple enough, plus it stops the obvious conflict of interest. More people will be safer for this. It is a good thing. The choices of the many will not be trampled on by the freedom of the individual to fleece them.

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay so why not the Medicare model for everyone?[/quote]

Because I don’t want a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the pockets of mega-donors choosing which health services I can or cannot have covered by my insurance.

Because you can’t follow simple logic, doesn’t mean the list of questions doesn’t obviously point out reasons. As for alternatives, you would have to provide any substance in your posts beyond lefty talking points for me to offer one.

[quote]and give scant reasons why these differences make no effect on Medicare (a government run healthcare).
[/quote]

Just lol.

I already started to break this down based on limited factors, even if I took the time to continue, you wouldn’t listen.

Um no… Their own website isn’t a creditable source. How about a medical journal with peer review?

That was NOT my answer, in fact you’re putting words in my mouth.

How do I propose this be done? Do you pay attention to politics? Why not have a “think tank” focused on showing what certain companies do, so people can choose where to spend their money, not have the government tell them where to spend their money.

I’m not 100% opposed to things like the FDA, ect given the ideals under which they are created. I am opposed to the current state of those type programs.

Who says it is out of reach. I think my grandfathers medicare bill was like 1,600 this year. Lets assume that for the sake of argument.

So he retires at 67 and lives 20 years, that is 32,000 in health “insurance costs”. Now lets assume he worked for 50 years and averaged 35k a year. That is about 25k throughout his lifetime he has paid in. (35k x .0145 x 50 years) So in total he will have paid about 57k or 2,850 a year for the time he uses medicare. So tell me this, seeing as he has already paid in all that, which doesn’t include some medications, co-pays, certain treatments or inflation, why should he pay more? (I’m sure you can extrapolate how much more someone who averages a higher salary a year pays in total.)[/quote]
Peer reviewed links will come shortly.

I would hazard to guess that even these folks would not roll over this money into an account specifically designed for healthcare if they had to pay our market-based costs. Can you explain why someone would pay twice as much for something with non-correlated outcomes?

You say you are not 100% opposed to the FDA but you see no conflict of interest in someone working for both the FDA and Big Pharma? And all you can come up with is that it curtails the freedom of the individual. But you give no thought to it’s consequence and what it means for the public.

Yeah “think tanks” are the answer. How many think tanks are not paid for by corporations?

You don’t need to break anything down because you can’t! Bottom line, we pay twice as much as anywhere in the world and healthcare is the number 1 reason for bankruptcy. But this is a system you tout. You give a list of questions in order to show me it’s not fair to compare us to any other nations, but can’t show why these do not play a part in Medicare. You have no argument for a market-based system as all the evidence is around you that it doesn’t work. But because of you being married to a right - wing economic theory it doesn’t allow you to see the truth and evidence.

74

it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol

75

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol[/quote]

Thank you, dmaddox, for answering half my question for Zeppelin. I thought Zeppelin may have been talking about Pfizer, but I said to myself, “Surely Zeppelin is not so stupid as to keep bringing up a company whose name he doesn’t even know as an example of anything.”

Now I just need Zeppelin to tell me the meaning of “visa versa.”

76

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol[/quote]

Thank you, dmaddox, for answering half my question for Zeppelin. I thought Zeppelin may have been talking about Pfizer, but I said to myself, “Surely Zeppelin is not so stupid as to keep bringing up a company whose name he doesn’t even know as an example of anything.”

Now I just need Zeppelin to tell me the meaning of “visa versa.” [/quote]

Get ready Zep is going to blame his bad spelling on his keyboard. I am thinking he is just stupid.

Hey Zep how is that MBA degree treating you now? You spent way too much money on an education that did not educate you. You got an MBA right? I would ask for my money back.

77

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Get ready Zep is going to blame his bad spelling on his keyboard. I am thinking he is just stupid.

Hey Zep how is that MBA degree treating you now? You spent way too much money on an education that did not educate you. You got an MBA right? I would ask for my money back.[/quote]

Maybe English is just his third or fourth language.

78

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Get ready Zep is going to blame his bad spelling on his keyboard. I am thinking he is just stupid.

Hey Zep how is that MBA degree treating you now? You spent way too much money on an education that did not educate you. You got an MBA right? I would ask for my money back.[/quote]

Maybe English is just his third or fourth language. [/quote]

Or he got an education from the RealNewz.

79

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
it is Pfizer not Phizer. lol the stock ticker symbol is PFE. lol[/quote]

Thank you, dmaddox, for answering half my question for Zeppelin. I thought Zeppelin may have been talking about Pfizer, but I said to myself, “Surely Zeppelin is not so stupid as to keep bringing up a company whose name he doesn’t even know as an example of anything.”

Now I just need Zeppelin to tell me the meaning of “visa versa.” [/quote]

Get ready Zep is going to blame his bad spelling on his keyboard. I am thinking he is just stupid.

Hey Zep how is that MBA degree treating you now? You spent way too much money on an education that did not educate you. You got an MBA right? I would ask for my money back.[/quote]

Good lord - if Zep has an MBA, I’m going to stop saying I have one.

Or could “MBA” also be an acronym for something completely unrelated - or even totally opposite of business?

I can think of a few, but they don’t require graduate-level college courses.

80

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:

The government by the people should not allow obvious conflicts of interest to be lawful.[/quote]

The government by the people wouldn’t have to have a law in place to do that. A government with less power to regulate and control the population wouldn’t need a law to prevent “conflict of interest” because there wouldn’t be one.

I bolded your go-to talking point that you love to toss around after you ignore factual information presented that counters your position. Well done.

Also, pot meet kettle.

So the government should be allowed to tell the citizens of its country where and who they can or can’t work for?

This is false, first off, and secondly not comparable.

You can drive through red lights all day if you want. You may die, kill someone else, or be fined and lose your privileges, but you are in fact free to do that.

You can’t compare regulations on a privilege to regulation of basic human rights.

Yes, welcome to this thing called liberty. No one said it was easy or safe.

The individual’s liberty is paramount, to everything. It is the trump card, it is the alpha, it is the beginning of any good government system.

No, sorry. You have the RIGHT to work for whomever you damn well please that will hire you. If the hiring company doesn’t hire you due to a perceived conflict of interest, then so be it, happens in private industry all the time. However, the government cannot tell you whom you can or cannot seek to work for.

So basically, because freedom isn’t always “safe” we should strip the citizens of their “freedom” so the can be safe to enjoy not having freedom?