Apparently, the First Amend does not apply to the Kochs

[ClosedCaption]

Everyone has an ideological viewpoint. Are you saying one cannot have a view point and relay an accurate time line of events?

That would mean that only the people without a viewpoint can present stories but people without views dont exist. Very tricky

Missing my point completely. That usually happens when someone reading what I post want's to "read into" in defense of their ideology.......... Try reading what I posted with an unbiased (non us vs them) mindset..........

What does that even mean. Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint? Or anything more specific than accusing me of bias?

Jeeze, you're kidding me right? Basic reading skills...... Look for the qualifiers........
I said neither. Look up the word 'usually' and I have no idea how you came up with; "Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint?".
Come on, you're an intelligent human being, I'll give you that much, use your intelligence to see exactly what I meant, it's obvious.

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

 

[Ringel05]

burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

I'm attempting to give you the opportunity to go back and read what I posted,

Not interested in this game bro

Well looks like you do fit into the "usually" category, oh well. There was no Gotcha.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Missing my point completely. That usually happens when someone reading what I post want's to "read into" in defense of their ideology.......... Try reading what I posted with an unbiased (non us vs them) mindset..........

What does that even mean. Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint? Or anything more specific than accusing me of bias?

Jeeze, you're kidding me right? Basic reading skills...... Look for the qualifiers........
I said neither. Look up the word 'usually' and I have no idea how you came up with; "Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint?".
Come on, you're an intelligent human being, I'll give you that much, use your intelligence to see exactly what I meant, it's obvious.

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What does that even mean. Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint? Or anything more specific than accusing me of bias?

Jeeze, you're kidding me right? Basic reading skills...... Look for the qualifiers........
I said neither. Look up the word 'usually' and I have no idea how you came up with; "Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint?".
Come on, you're an intelligent human being, I'll give you that much, use your intelligence to see exactly what I meant, it's obvious.

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

 

[g5000]

Has anyone ever asked if the 'koch' brothers even exist? This internet rumor has been going around for years and no credible news source has ever posted a set of full names or even a picture.

 

[g5000]

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist.

 

[g5000]

Money = Power

Money = Speech.

Speech = Free.

Therefore, Money is Free!

 

[BlindBoo]

Has anyone ever asked if the 'koch' brothers even exist? This internet rumor has been going around for years and no credible news source has ever posted a set of full names or even a picture.

Is that Charles or David?

 

[Ringel05]

Jeeze, you're kidding me right? Basic reading skills...... Look for the qualifiers........
I said neither. Look up the word 'usually' and I have no idea how you came up with; "Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint?".
Come on, you're an intelligent human being, I'll give you that much, use your intelligence to see exactly what I meant, it's obvious.

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

That simply shows that you either can't or won't understand what I posted even after I (for a second time) made it painfully clear. I can't help ya buddy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

That simply shows that you either can't or won't understand what I posted even after I (for a second time) made it painfully clear. I can't help ya buddy.

I said I don't understand and would you explain it. Everytime you've declined and even others who claimed they knew couldn't explain it either. Looks like the problem is I don't understand and you can't explain yourself

 

[Ringel05]

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

That simply shows that you either can't or won't understand what I posted even after I (for a second time) made it painfully clear. I can't help ya buddy.

I said I don't understand and would you explain it. Everytime you've declined and even others who claimed they knew couldn't explain it either. Looks like the problem is I don't understand and you can't explain yourself

I was literally attempting to give you the opportunity to utilize a combination of critical thinking skill, a somewhat more than basic understanding of the English language and at least a basic knowledge of grammar and sentence structure. I do that with almost everyone who misinterprets what I post, it separates the truly objective ones from the biased hacks.
How you misunderstood a perfectly clear, easily understood message leads me to believe your grasp of the English language is faulty or you're reading into it with an us vs them mentality. If I was wrong on that account then you have my apologies but I honestly don't think I'm mistaken in my assessment.
My original (and subsequent) posts were simply put and a completely unbiased (proven) observation on the merits of the article and how some will interpret said article. Besides, I finally did relent and answer your question with a simple clarification, you chose to ignore it and instead respond defensively.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Jeeze, you're kidding me right? Basic reading skills...... Look for the qualifiers........
I said neither. Look up the word 'usually' and I have no idea how you came up with; "Are you disagreeing that everyone has an ideological viewpoint?".
Come on, you're an intelligent human being, I'll give you that much, use your intelligence to see exactly what I meant, it's obvious.

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

Nice trick Got cha

I understood it. I didnt see any gotcha.

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

CC, is that you cleo?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then tell me what he's saying I got wrong or what he's disagreeing with. Thanks.

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

That simply shows that you either can't or won't understand what I posted even after I (for a second time) made it painfully clear. I can't help ya buddy.

I said I don't understand and would you explain it. Everytime you've declined and even others who claimed they knew couldn't explain it either. Looks like the problem is I don't understand and you can't explain yourself

I was literally attempting to give you the opportunity to utilize a combination of critical thinking skill, a somewhat more than basic understanding of the English language and at least a basic knowledge of grammar and sentence structure. I do that with almost everyone who misinterprets what I post, it separates the truly objective ones from the biased hacks.

Great, and thanks for that opportunity. Now will you answer the question?

 

[Ringel05]

You're bright CC. Why don't you think on it for awhile and then give your interpretation and I'll let you know if youre wrong. I want to see some of that logical deduction in action. You can do it CC.

So you're playing the same game too.

I said this:

Oh I get it, you say things that you cant explain and then puts the burden on everyone else with vague responses like "read" and "understand".

All while not answering any questions that would help get to your point.

And you guys just cant help making me look like a psychic.

That simply shows that you either can't or won't understand what I posted even after I (for a second time) made it painfully clear. I can't help ya buddy.

I said I don't understand and would you explain it. Everytime you've declined and even others who claimed they knew couldn't explain it either. Looks like the problem is I don't understand and you can't explain yourself

I was literally attempting to give you the opportunity to utilize a combination of critical thinking skill, a somewhat more than basic understanding of the English language and at least a basic knowledge of grammar and sentence structure. I do that with almost everyone who misinterprets what I post, it separates the truly objective ones from the biased hacks.

Great, and thanks for that opportunity. Now will you answer the question?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you simply stupid? I answered your question at least twice unless you have a separate question that I missed somewhere along the way.

 

[boilermaker55]

Major Fail.

if they are displeased with a story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/n...n-she-wrote-about-the-koch-brothers.html?_r=0

The Kochs don't have freedom of speech or religion? Why not?

 

[boilermaker55]

When you have $,
Prize-winning New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer made headlines recently when she released a new book, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, that revealed how the father of the Koch brothers once helped build a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was a pet project of Adolph Hitler. Overall, the book tells the tale of a small number of ultrarich donors—including Richard Mellon Scaife and Harry and Lynde Bradley—who did much to create the modern conservative moment, with a strong emphasis on billionaires Charles and David Koch. "It is not easy to uncover the inner workings of an essentially secretive political establishment," the New York Times' review of the book notes. "Mayer has come as close to doing it as anyone is likely to come anytime soon." And there's a section in the book that should be particularly chilling for journalists, for Mayer describes how she became the target of a nasty opposition research effort after she wrote about the Koch brothers several years ago.
In the summer of 2010, she published a pathbreaking, in-depth piece, headlined "Covert Operations," which chronicled the rise of the Kochs' ideological network—dubbed the "Kochtopus"—and the efforts of the publicity-shy libertarian brothers to guide the burgeoning tea party toward policies that favor Koch Industries. The article depicted the Kochs as secretive bankrollers waging a war against President Barack Obama and opposing environmental safety measures. The Kochs were enraged by the story. A lawyer for their company complained; David Koch called the story "ludicrous." But the New Yorker saw no reason to correct anything. And the kerfuffle seemed to die down. Or so Mayer thought.
While reporting for her book, Mayer discovered that after her story was published, the Koch political machine assigned six or so operatives, who were working in borrowed space in the lobbying firm operated by J.C. Watts, a former Republican congressman, to dig up dirt on her. She notes that a source told her, "If they couldn't find it, they'd create it." And Mayer maintains that a private investigative firm, Vigilant Resources International, was hired for this job as well. (This company was founded by Howard Safir, who had been a New York City police commissioner when Rudy Giuliani was mayor.)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Mayer writes that she was at the time unaware of this effort, but she began to spot clues. A blogger asked if she had heard the rumor that a private detective firm was on her trail. At a Christmas party, a former reporter told her that a private investigator had mentioned that some conservative billionaires were looking for dirt on a reporter who had written a story they disliked. Then, in January 2011, a New York Post reporter, Keith Kelly, contacted David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, to get a comment on "allegations" that would soon be published claiming that Mayer had borrowed heavily from other reporters. Shortly after that, as Mayer puts it in her book, Jonathan Strong, then a reporter at the conservative Daily Caller, emailed Mayer and Remnick and asked whether her work fell "within the realm of plagiarism." He sent several examples of her purported theft.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Major Fail.

if they are displeased with a story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/n...n-she-wrote-about-the-koch-brothers.html?_r=0

The Kochs don't have freedom of speech or religion? Why not?

I agree, the OP was a big, big fail.