Tea Party financier bribed terrorist state to gain contract

I'd like to say I'm shocked. I'd like to, but....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting...

"Internal company documents show that the company made those sales through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban. Koch Industries units have also rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada."

From 1999 through 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments. In December 1999, a civil jury found that Koch Industries had taken oil it didn't pay for from federal land by mismeasuring the amount of crude it was extracting. Koch paid a $25 million settlement to the U.S.

Phil Dubose, a Koch employee who testified against the company said he and his colleagues were shown by their managers how to steal and cheat -- using techniques they called the Koch Method. [...]

For six decades around the world, Koch Industries has blazed a path to riches -- in part, by making illicit payments to win contracts, trading with a terrorist state, fixing prices, neglecting safety and ignoring environmental regulations. At the same time, Charles and David Koch have promoted a form of government that interferes less with company actions."

No votes yet

George Soros turned jews over to the nazi's!! BFD!!

Pink, don’t you get it. It doesn’t matter if the Koch brothers or Halliburton support Iran today allowing them to fund terrorism directed at the United States and Israel because 66 years ago at age 14 George Soros did something for the Nazi’s. Don’t you see that it means that right wing sugar daddies can do anything they want, whenever they want.

"Pink, don’t you get it. It doesn’t matter if the Koch brothers or Halliburton support Iran today"

From 1999 to 2003 is not today in any sence of the word, and it was not during the Iraq war either.....as in the case of GE, who did business with Iran through 2005...

From the looks of it....they paid the settlements and fines, which means they have settled their "debt to society"...

This has little to do with "what" happened...but rather "who" did it...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

I'd be concerned if it wasn't for the reason that GE did business with Iran from 2001 to 2005 when they were aiding to kill American troops and yet you had nothing to say about that. Maybe it's because the GE CEO is in the Obama Administration.

MikeyA

"George Soros turned jews over to the nazi's!!"

Says who?

MikeyA, sorry, but I wasn't blogging in 2005. Were you? That's probably why you didn't hear me say anything about GE.

Do you have any comments on the Koch article, or do you want to start a post about GE?

Pink Slip

"George Soros turned jews over to the nazi's!!"

Says who?

Says George Soros...talking about the nazi occupation...working for a Nazi who took property from Jews...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

First of all numnuts, there is nothing in that quote about him turning over Jews to the Nazis. Secondly, you left out the rest of the quote:

"1944 became the formative experience of my life. I was fourteen, and I had boundless admiration for my father. I absorbed and adopted his view of the world wholesale. As I have often said, the year of German occupation was a strangely positive experience for me. We were confronted by mortal danger and people perished all around us, but we managed not only to survive but to emerge victorious because we were able to help so many others. We were on the side of angels and we triumphed against overwhelming odds. What more can a fourteen-year-old ask for?"

What a monster!

Pink Slip

"Do you have any comments on the Koch article, or do you want to start a post about GE?"

Why do we need a post? They're related aren't they? In fact I'd say GE's is more of a story because of their use within the administration.

"MikeyA, sorry, but I wasn't blogging in 2005. Were you? That's probably why you didn't hear me say anything about GE. Well you didn't say anything when the President added the CEO of GM to his administration so since you're suddenly concerned about the Koch brothers I'm sure you'll now take this time to voice your displeasure on Immelt as well. Sorry for interrupting. You may now voice it.

MikeyA

Immelt's selection by the President was widely panned on the left, as were GE's business relations with Iran. I'll be waiting for the same reaction on the right, regarding the Koch brothers.

Pink Slip

And we will just as soon as they're a part of an administration.

MikeyA

Notice how I asked him to voice his displeasure. He never does. Sure many on the left "panned" Immelt's selection but did we get a thread on here by Pink? Has he panned it since I called him out on it? Nope.

Yet I'm supposed to be shocked and pissed about someone outside of the administration doing the same thing as someone inside the administration. I bet if the Koch bros. decided to send jobs to China I'm supposed to be shocked and pissed about that too?

MikeyA

I hope the following Congress people will call for an investigation into the Koch brothers political contributions:
Barrow, John (D-GA),Berry, Marion (D-AR),Boren, Dan (D-OK),Boyd, Allen (D-FL),Bright, Bobby (D-AL)Cuellar, Henry (D-TX),Schumer, Charles E (D-NY),Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR),BobBayh, Evan (D-IN)
I think Chuck Schumer probably has the gravitas to pull it off. Let's watch and see if he does.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Way to turn this into a partisan issue, Fraud.

Pink Slip

Actually what I've done is point out that both Dems and Republicans have taken Koch money which makes it non partisan. There is little difference in the two parties which I've said for the last five years. If you want something different to happen in Washington you have to vote for something or someone different. Perry is Romney in a more expensive suit. Bachman is Palin without the rifle. Obama is Clinton without the stained dress.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

LMAO...obama is Jimmy Carter without the cool brother...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

"There is little difference in the two parties"

Great. Tell us something we don't know. Any comments on the Koch article?

Pink Slip

I prefer Pepsi.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Actually what you've done is point out that this is the other missing 5 hours of your work day. We all know you only spend three (3) hours a day in the office. The other 5 hours are spent blogging on the internet trolling for ideas for tomorrows show. Or maybe its just looking for an audience to bolster the ratings.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

shouldn't you be out occupying Toledo? tisk... tisk... and here I thought you were dedicated to the cause, man.

MikeyA

Dude, what is up with obsessing about what Fred does during the day.

We get it. You don't like WSPD. Thankfully, this is America and we all have the choice not to listen to someone if we don't choose to. I stopped watching Fox and MSNBC/Olbermann simply because I made a choice not to listen to a bunch of six year olds arguing back and forth when there are serious issues that our alleged, and I do mean alleged, leaders need to address.

That, my friend, is what we all need to be obsessing about.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

How does posting a story about the Koch brothers titled Tea Party financier bribed terrorist state to gain contract not making partisan already?

My guess is that if you had read a similar story and instead of the Koch brothers, it was some about billionaire liberal, you wouldn't have even taken the time to log in. But seeing that they are the left's favorite boogeymen...bombs away.

This thing was partisan from the jump, the least you can do is own up to it.

"How does posting a story about the Koch brothers titled Tea Party financier bribed terrorist state to gain contract not making partisan already?"

I'll have to answer your question with another question. Is the Tea Party movement partisan?

Pink Slip

It's no more partisan than the alleged occupation of Wall Street by a bunch of snobby rich elitists masquerading as populists.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"...alleged occupation of Wall Street by a bunch of snobby rich elitists masquerading as populists."

??? What makes you think they're "snobby rich elitists"? Have you seen the proposed list of demands? I suggest you take a look. And while you're looking, ask yourself who would benefit from these demands (hint...it's not the "rich elitists"). You're not thinking this through clearly.

Pink Slip

Sure. I'll do that about the same time you take a look at the real people in the Tea Party- hint: not nearly as extreme as some on the left would love them to be.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Since I don't expect you to try and learn anything outside your narrow worldview, here's just a couple of proposed demands from their website:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-edita...

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .
USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's....

Etc...Just take a look at what I posted. How would these things benefit the "snobby rich elitists"? Don't worry if you're starting to feel foolish. It's the correct response.

Pink Slip

Actually, I'm laughing at the notion of being called narrow-minded by someone, um would be you, who's incredibly narrow minded.

Since you can't help yourself and resort to snarky attempts at put downs, something my daughter thankfully gave up doing when she turned 12, to anyone who has the temerity to espouse a view that disagrees with yours...

You know, if I can figure how a way to balance the budget within 4 years, cut the national debt in half, and produce a billion dollar surplus within 10 years by not raising taxes but reforming taxes, eliminating the loopholes and enacting a variation of the flat tax
-repealing Obamacare and enacting REALhealth care reform
-freezing defense spending for 5 yrs, cut oveaseas aid
-and etc...

Why can't Congress?

And if we're going to prosecute anyone, we should prosecute Nancy Pelosi for her role in driving up the national debt by 33% during her tenure as Speaker.

Then I want Chris Dodd and Barney Frank prosecuted for their role in the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac meltdown.

I laughed out loud when the Citizens United proposal went after corporations only and not union groups. Curb them all, I say.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"I can figure how a way to balance the budget within 4 years, cut the national debt in half, and produce a billion dollar surplus within 10 years by not raising taxes but reforming taxes, eliminating the loopholes and enacting a variation of the flat tax
-repealing Obamacare

FAIL. According to the CBO, repealing the healthcare bill would INCREASE the deficit/debt.

Pink Slip

No, you FAIL. The website stated pretty clear that the cost of Obamacare added to the deficit. And besides, I don't trust any figure the CBO, or any other governmental entity, cooks up until it's actually time to pass the appropriations bill.

My gut tells me that when Obamacare really kicks in there's going to be a lot of people getting a rude awakening. And if Obama's still president at that point, he's in for 4 fun-filled years.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"No, you FAIL. The website stated pretty clear that the cost of Obamacare added to the deficit."

What website? Repealing the health care bill would ADD to the deficit:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/06/news/economy/health_care_repeal_cost/ind...

"I don't trust any figure the CBO...cooks up"

Ah, well there you have it. It must be a freeing experience to base your opinion solely on what your gut tells you, in spite of the facts.

That's no way to have an intelligent argument, dude. Do some research for crying out loud.

Pink Slip

okay...on yours...
1. No on repealing Gramm-Leach etc...
2. No- for the reasons I've already noted.
3. No- Big Labor and unions should be put in the same grouping as big corps.
4. No- I favor a flat tax that closes all loopholes and the abolishment of the IRS.

Plus, I favor a rule called the 'American Heartland Rule.' If Buffett and others who think like him feel they aren't paying enough in taxes, they should consider it their patriotic duty to send in extra tax payments to help bring the deficit/national debt down.

Even better, if Buffett would have used the 3.3 billion dollars he recently donated to fellow uber billionaire Bill Gates and set up a fund to pay off the mortgages of lower middle/middle class Americans and give them a defacto tax cut ranging from 500- 1500
dollars on average, it would do more good for the economy than raising taxes to go into the federal government so Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can spend it.

On these:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

--No on 'living wage.' Yes on 'Fairtrade'. I would end NAFTA. No on the idiotic idea to raise min. wage to $20 per hr. That's not the least bit realistic.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

-No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The last thing middle America needs is to watch their taxes go sky high to European levels. Fix the problem and reform health care and throw tort reform in to boot. This is way too extreme.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

-No.

Demand four: Free college education.

-No.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

-Only if we drill like crazy in the short term and then smoothly transition out. Otherwise, you will hurt the poor, middle class by raising their cost of living.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

-Sure. As long as there's spending cuts of equal proportion on the other side that doesn't cripple our defense capability.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

-No. Too left wing extremist.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

-No. We already have it.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

-No. We have a right to protect our borders- see Texas, Arizona.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

-No.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

-Hell, no. Explain to me where anything above doesn't smell like left wing extremism.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

-No.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

-No. Big unions are JUST AS MUCH OF THE PROBLEM AS BIG CORPORATIONS.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
- no, no they won't. They're the product of left wing extremist fantasyland.

-----------------------------------------------

If anyone should feel foolish, Pink, it's you for supporting this type of left wing fantasy demands that aren't rooted in the least in reality. All they are is an extreme left wing wish list of things they want to force on America. I would move from this country if half of this crap actually were enacted, that's how extreme I feel most of it is.

BTW.. Pink by supporting this type of abject extreme thinking, you've lost any high ground to complain about the Tea Party. I don't believe anything in the Tea Party even comes close to the extremist ideas from extreme left wing fantasy land espoused above-...not...even...close.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Ok, so you don't agree with any of their stances. That's fine, I didn't expect you to. Well, actually I would think that most people would be in favor of investigating Wall St criminals, but whatever. But I believe you used the term "laughable", and then immediately endorsed the wacky idea of the fair tax. Sorry, but you lose all credibility there. Are there ANY economists that endorse the fair tax scheme?

"If Buffett and others who think like him feel they aren't paying enough in taxes, they should consider it their patriotic duty to send in extra tax payments to help bring the deficit/national debt down."

I've heard this type of argument by those on the right, like yourself, for months now. This idea is a farce. Sure it sounds great--just send more money to the IRS voluntarily. Unfortunately it's stupid. How does that extra money get appropriated to things like infrastructure and education without the proper legislation?? It doesn't.

In regards to repealing corporate "personhood", you bring up unions. But unions are not considered "persons", are they?

As far as the rest of the demands you commented on, they are not in the link I provided. So let's stick to the link. You've already helped to derail the thread.

Pink Slip

And you lost ALL credibility when you hitched your wagon to what any REASONABLE observer with the IQ of a BRICK can see is not some noble group of citizens rising up against the big, bad corporations, but a bunch of far left wing extremists masquerading as populists who want to cram their left wing agenda down our throats.

You're a hypocrite. You support big unions so, of course, you'd hate see their power clipped. And you oh so conveniently served up three or four of the most moderate of their asinine demands and left out the meat and potatoes of what Occupy Wall Street is REALLY all about.

Please, explain to me (if you can) what is so wacky about a flat tax for both families and for corporations. For starters, it would eliminate ALL of the LOOPHOLES. That's a pretty wacky idea. Let's see, for a single person, the first 30 to 40K is exempt and the rest is taxed at a percentage. Please explain to me just what in the world is so wacky about that? Oh I know, you would have the top marginal rates moved back up to what 50-60%. Pink, let me make this clear to you- IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. And confiscating 50 to 60% of someone's income is MORALLY WRONG, in my opinion.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"And confiscating 50 to 60% of someone's income is MORALLY WRONG, in my opinion."

50-60%????? Where do you get these fantasy numbers??? We've got the super rich paying tax rates at 14-17% while the middle class is paying about 30%. THAT is morally wrong.

Pink Slip

No, I was suggesting that your fantasy numbers would be to see a 50-60% top marginal rate. Can you try to actually read the posts without attempting to insert things in that's not there?

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"I was suggesting that your fantasy numbers would be to see a 50-60% top marginal rate."

Oh, I see. So you are assigning a specific stance to me that I have never taken, and then telling me how "morally wrong" that is. That's brilliant.

Pink Slip

Your stance is hardly a secret Pinko....it's a wide stance....

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

  1. Terrorists
  2. Hostage Takers
  3. and

  4. Petulant, Spoiled Brats

Of course you'd have to be more specific about which list you're referring to, since I think there are something like six floating around now. From what I've seen though, they range from laughably liberal to disturbingly delusional.

Or citizens who tired of being ignored by their government. Which demands in the link I provided are "laughable"?

Pink Slip

No citizens who are tired of being ignored by their government do something about it.... vote.

Notice the tea party was tired of being ignored by their government. They showed up at politicians town halls. When unions showed up and made things violent the Tea Party then primaried and voted candidates who would listen.

The occupy wall street is an exercise in futility. It is the same people who opposed the war who oddly now don't oppose the war. They will scream and whine and nothing else. They won't get their way and they will fade away.

As accurately noted the "list of demands" just goes to show how much on the fringe they are. Really? Students shouldn't have to pay their federal student loans back? Really?

Now there are issues they could gain bipartisian support on. I for one was against the bailouts, I noted on here they all should have gone through bankruptcy instead of being propped up. But they are more interested in starting a revolution to remove the capitalist system than they are of actually getting something positive done.

MikeyA

I'll say it again, Pink has lost any right to complain about the Tea Party if she supports the completely unrealistic and extreme wish list proposed by the #occupywallstreet folks.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Extreme?

1. Reinstate provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act
2. Investigate Wall St Criminals
3. Reverse the Citizens United decision
4. Increase taxes on millionaires
5. Revamp the SEC
6. Limit the influence of lobbyists
7. Prevent former government regulators from working for industries they used to regulate. (i.e. "the revolving door")
8. Eliminate corporate personhood.

If these ideas are "extreme" then you live on another planet. If I wanted to take the time, I'll bet I can easily find polls that show most Americans support at least 3-5 of the items listed above (if not more).

Pink Slip

It's a shame I must repeat and quote myself.

"Really? Students shouldn't have to pay their federal student loans back? Really?"

MikeyA

Oh puh-leeze. You conveniently cherry picked the most moderate items in the Occupy Wall Street manifesto and tried to pass it off as indicative of what the group stands for and ignored the $20 an hour minimum wage and other stuff.

It's called being misleading. It's called misrepresentation.

If you want an honest debate about this, Pink- I'll be around. If you're going to spin this all over the place and then hit me with one of your snarky, "Well, you disagree with me so that must mean your ignorant and have no clue what's going on.:" bull@#$#, I have much better things to do. Like working. You see, I don't have the plethora of free time that these students, Michael Moore, and the other people who make up Occupy Wall Street seem to have.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"Oh puh-leeze. You conveniently cherry picked the most moderate items

That's a bold-faced lie. I posted the link,and asked what was so extreme. The items I listed are directly from the link.

Pink Slip

Yes you did.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

"No citizens who are tired of being ignored by their government do something about it.... vote.

So, are you saying citizens shouldn't protest?

"It is the same people who opposed the war who oddly now don't oppose the war."

Seriously?? Where do you get this idea? Look, I expect you guys to believe that the Tea Party movement is good and pure, patriotic and focused and to conversely believe that the Occupy Wall St movement is juvenile, misguided, whiny waste of time. Of course that's how you think--no one would have expected any different. But when you misrepresent the ideas behind the protests, you only expose your ignorance. In other words, at least try to be factually correct.

Pink Slip

Seriously?? Where do you get this idea? Look, I expect you to believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement is good and pure, patriotic and focused and to conversely believe that the Tea Party movement is extreme and dangerous. Of course that's how you think--no one would have expected any different. But when you misrepresent the ideas behind the Tea Party, you only expose your ignorance. In other words, at least try to be factually correct.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Pretty much all of them.

The citizens who are tired of being ignored by their government- that would be the Tea Party.

Petulant, snobby, rich elitists in school on Mommy and Daddy's dime masquerading as citizens who are tired of being ignored by their government and join up with the likes of Michael Moore and big unions to put forth an agenda that's so extreme to the left that it makes Pat freakin' Buchanan look moderate- yeah, that would be Occupy Wall Street.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Well well...it appears there is more to the story...(as usual)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/bloomberg-whiffs-part-1.php

Posted on October 3, 2011 by John Hinderaker in The War on the Koch Brothers
Bloomberg Whiffs, Part 1
Last Friday, I wrote about a Bloomberg Markets story on Koch Industries which at that time was still in preparation. According to multiple reports, the story was expected to focus on claims that a European Koch subsidiary had business transactions in Iran, while another European subsidiary made improper payments to government officials and others overseas. I pointed out that it is legal for foreign subsidiaries of American companies to do business in Iran, and many of them do. I also noted that some years ago, Koch barred all of its affiliates from doing business in Iran, thereby going beyond legal requirements.

As to the improper payments, I pointed out that Koch discovered that they had been made and fired the responsible employees. Here, too, Koch is one of hundreds of large American companies that have caught employees of foreign subsidiaries violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by engaging in what are, in many parts of the world, standard practices. I concluded by writing an email to the Bloomberg editor responsible for the story, Jonathan Neumann, in which I asked a series of questions bearing on Bloomberg’s journalistic practices and ethics.

The Bloomberg article appeared today with more of a whimper than a bang. It promised much and delivered little. The printed version is titled “The Secret Sins of Koch Industries,” while the online version is titled “Koch Brothers Flout Law With Secret Iran Sales.” The printed version includes a summary paragraph that says in part, “David and Charles Koch, billionaire brothers and major Tea Party backers, run a corporate empire that has made illicit payments to win contracts, sold chemical equipment to Iran in defiance of a U.S. trade ban….”

So both versions explicitly claim that Koch broke the law by allowing a foreign subsidiary to make sales in Iran. But if you actually read the article, you find that Bloomberg contradicts its own lurid claim by acknowledging that in fact, Koch was careful to make sure that its subsidiary’s conduct was fully lawful:

Internal company records show that Koch Industries used its foreign subsidiary to sidestep a U.S. trade ban barring American companies from selling materials to Iran. Koch-Glitsch offices in Germany and Italy continued selling to Iran until as recently as 2007, the records show.

The trade ban doesn’t apply to foreign subsidiaries.

Koch Industries took elaborate steps to ensure that its U.S.-based employees weren’t involved in the sales to Iran, internal documents show.

Yes, that is what Koch and other companies have to do to comply with the law.

Internal Koch-Glitsch correspondence shows that the company coordinated with Koch Industries lawyers in the U.S. to make sure that American employees didn’t work on sales to Iran. Elena Rigon, now Koch-Glitsch compliance manager for Europe, based in Italy, in December 2000 addressed a memo outlining compliance guidelines to company managers in her region.

In another e-mail, Rigon said all offices had to go through a checklist for each estimate quoted for materials headed to Iran. “Your staff shall send this form to me since I have to send it to the lawyers in the USA as part of the compliance program,” Rigon wrote in the e-mail. “If somebody happens to find out that any U.S. persons are involved in this project or U.S. material is delivered to Iran you CANNOT quote.”

In other words, Koch Industries insisted on strict compliance with the law. Bloomberg gives the last word to Koch’s spokeswoman, Melissa Cohlmia:

“Koch-Glitsch had protocols in place that were consistent with applicable U.S. laws allowing such sales at the foreign subsidiary level,” Koch’s Cohlmia says.

Which Bloomberg can’t, and doesn’t, deny. So the supposedly explosive charge that Bloomberg chose to headline–Koch “flout[ed] the law” and acted “in defiance of a U.S. trade ban” is simply false. Koch did no such thing; what is more, unlike hundreds of other American companies, it has voluntarily gone beyond the requirements of the law and has, in more recent years, prohibited all subsidiaries from doing business in Iran. As I noted in my initial post, the list of American companies whose foreign subsidiaries have sold products or provided services in Iran is an impressive one. It includes Alcatel-Lucent, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG and Tyson Foods, to name just a few. These companies aren’t “flouting the law” any more than Koch Industries is; they are following it. But one wonders; why, exactly, did Bloomberg choose to single out Koch? Has it done a similar “expose” on any of the other companies, numbering in the hundreds, that have legally done business in Iran?

Actually, I didn’t just wonder; I asked Bloomberg’s editor that, among other questions:

4) Reports also indicate that your story will focus on the fact that a sub-subsidiary of Koch in Europe sold goods to Iran. Why do you find this newsworthy? Has Bloomberg done stories on the hundreds of other American companies whose subsidiaries have done business with Iran, legally? If not, why not? Do you consider it praiseworthy that Koch has gone beyond the requirements of the law by dictating that no Koch affiliate will do business with Iran?

So far, Mr. Neumann has not responded to my inquiry.

The issue of Iran is a good place to begin because it highlights one of the fundamental problems with Bloomberg’s story: it could have been written about nearly any large manufacturing company. If a company has more than 50,000 employees scattered around the world, someone somewhere will violate company policies or otherwise screw up. If a company refines and ships petroleum products, manufactures paper products, etc.–as opposed to, say, designing apps–it inevitably will encounter environmental and safety issues. Koch’s spokeswoman put it well:

“We are proud to be a major American employer and manufacturing company with about 50,000 U.S. employees,” she wrote. “Given the regulatory complexity of our business, we will, like any business, have issues that arise. When we fall short of our goals, we take steps to correct and address the issues in order to ensure compliance.”

Bloomberg’s article offers a pastiche of five or six incidents which took place over a period of decades, are completely unrelated, and were selected by Bloomberg simply because they can be used to put Koch in a bad light. Bloomberg says that “Koch’s history of flouting rules covers more than two decades,” but what that actually means is that Bloomberg had to go back a quarter century to find a handful of examples where Koch had a regulatory problem. (Actually, one of the instances cited by Bloomberg goes back to the Truman administration.). The same attack could be made against any large manufacturing company. Let’s take just one example.

General Electric is the Obama administration’s favorite U.S. company (with the possible exception of “green” energy sinkholes like Solyndra). Yet everything Bloomberg wrote about Koch Industries could just as easily have been written about G.E. G.E.’s foreign subsidiaries have done business in Iran, and G.E., like Koch, has publicly noted that its subsidiaries’ dealings with Iran were legal. Likewise, employees of one or more G.E. companies paid bribes to obtain business in Iraq, and just last year, G.E. paid a $23.4 million fine as a result. And G.E. has had environmental problems, like–to name just a few–contaminating the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers with PCBs, along with the Coosa River Basin, and releasing dimethyl sulfate, chlorine, 1, 1, 1, -trichloroethane, ammonia, and toluene from its silicone manufacturing plant in Waterford, New York. G.E. has had product liability problems, including claims of wrongful death that were, tragically, justified. And, while Bloomberg makes a laughable price-fixing claim against Koch, G.E. was in fact a party to one of the most famous price-fixing conspiracies of all time.

So, is Bloomberg’s story titled “The Secret Sins of General Electric?” Or, in the online version, “General Electric Flouts Law With Secret Iran Sales?” Of course not. G.E. is generally identified with the Democratic Party. Does anyone seriously doubt that Bloomberg wanted to do a hit piece on Koch Industries solely because that company’s owners are prominent conservatives? Of course not.

Speaking of the Democratic Party, it has quickly jumped on its ally’s bandwagon. Today the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee used Bloomberg’s report to attack an Arkansas Republican Congressman, Tim Griffin:

NEWS RELEASE

Representative Tim Griffin (AR-02)’s campaign for Congress has benefited from over $160,000 from controversial Koch Industries which profited from business with Iran despite the country’s known links to financing terrorists, a new Bloomberg investigation found.

Bloomberg reports that “Koch Industries — in addition to being involved in improper payments [bribes] to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East — has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.”

This is what Andrew Breitbart calls the Democrat-media complex. From Bloomberg’s perspective it is “mission accomplished,” unless readers actually read its article critically. We will have more to say about other aspects of Bloomberg’s politically-motivated hit piece, but for now, I am sending another email to Jonathan Neumann:

--------------------------------------------------

So there we have it...Any Koch sales by EU subsidiaries to Iran where just as legal as GE sales through EU subsidiaries to Iran...

And Koch banned the practice in 2003....yet GE didnt stop until 2005....a full two years after the Iraq war started...

Now...about Soros admitting the year he worked for a nazi property collector was the best year of his life...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Obamis brother can't afford to buy beer, or move out of his 8X12' shack, either.

I HATE CORPORATIONS!

Sent from Blackberry while reading iPad using the free WiFi of McDonalds

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.