The Koch Brothers are a pair of uber rich oil magnates that fund far right think tanks like the Reason Institute (which produced this video), the Cato Institute, the Heritage foundation. They also fund far right front groups/astroturf outfits like Citizens for a Sound Economy, Freedomworks and the tea party. They also fund far right candidates like Mitt Romney, Scott Walker and many of the 'tea party' candidates. >> ^CrushBug:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nice try Koch brothers [snip]
Sorry pumpkin, but I am obligated to downvote this disingenuous Koch-media propaganda.

Sorry, what is a "Koch brother"? In my city, it is the name of a Ford dealership and I am pretty sure that is not what we are talking about.

What does any of this have to do with my comment or this video?

>> ^Mashiki:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Bullshit.
AIM is a corporate front group funded by the Oil Industry. Last I checked, the Oil Industry was not super concerned with "Accuracy In Media."
The items this guy (a FOX NEWS analyst) is screaming about are conservative talking points that have been featured extensively on FOX, among other corporate media outlets.
This presentation (and organization) is every bit a part of the machine it pretends to protest.
I agree with the hyperbolic sentiment of the title, but not the hypocrisy within.
Yeah that's funny. Next you'll be telling us that media matters is a fully non-partisan group that isn't funded by george soros, and hasn't been having pow-wows with the white house on how to spin the news. And that fast and furious didn't result in the deaths of 300 mexicians, the death of an american, and the cold blooded gunning down of 16 kids at a party either.
I suggest watching the full 30min speech instead of the four minute clip, it's much better.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Bullshit.
AIM is a corporate front group funded by the Oil Industry. Last I checked, the Oil Industry was not super concerned with "Accuracy In Media."
The items this guy (a FOX NEWS analyst) is screaming about are conservative talking points that have been featured extensively on FOX, among other corporate media outlets.
This presentation (and organization) is every bit a part of the machine it pretends to protest.
I agree with the hyperbolic sentiment of the title, but not the hypocrisy within.
Yeah that's funny. Next you'll be telling us that media matters is a fully non-partisan group that isn't funded by george soros, and hasn't been having pow-wows with the white house on how to spin the news. And that fast and furious didn't result in the deaths of 300 mexicians, the death of an american, and the cold blooded gunning down of 16 kids at a party either.

I suggest watching the full 30min speech instead of the four minute clip, it's much better.

Bullshit.

AIM is a corporate front group funded by the Oil Industry. Last I checked, the Oil Industry was not super concerned with "Accuracy In Media."

The items this guy (a FOX NEWS analyst) is screaming about are conservative talking points that have been featured extensively on FOX, among other corporate media outlets.

This presentation (and organization) is every bit a part of the machine it pretends to protest.

I agree with the hyperbolic sentiment of the title, but not the hypocrisy within.

The commentary and downvotes are well within the spirit of the channel. The description reads....

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

"Commercial Sift
by looris

Commercials, advertisements, and everything about someone trying to gain money, to sell crap, to get discounts, to promote things, and so on.

http://mlx.videosift.com/
Style courtesy of mlx, who has done a great job and won a prize for that, because commercials are never without a price

http://maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/
Logo is from Jennifer Government by Max Barry, which is a GREAT modern-cyberpunk book about corporations which all of you should really buy. Really, do yourself this favour."

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

I don't get the picture that looris had free ad time for ruthless corporations in mind when he made this channel. If Coca Cola wants comment free advertising on this site, let them pay for it.

Just because you don't see the politics, doesn't mean they aren't there. Outside of all of Coke's unethical business practices and labor abuse, The Coca-Cola Company, itself, spends a lot of money on politics, supporting candidates and political front groups: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coca-Cola_Company

Beyond this, I think advertising diabetes inducing products to kids, and co-opting the iconography of a beloved cultural holiday is gross. Santa Clause doesn't drink Coke, he drinks hot cocoa and apple cider.

Anyway, I know you probably don't care about any of this and just wanted to enjoy a cute commercial. I get that and I'm sorry I've antagonized you. I've paid a visit to your pq, so net gain for you.

>> ^marbles:
I was more referring to the front groups for global elites that are obsessed with population control.

Illuminati?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Marbles may be referring to this garbage bill, which has yet to pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act


Thanks, but I was more referring to the front groups for global elites that are obsessed with population control. Don't know anything about this bill.

You don't seem to be getting the point. Let me try again.

-My original post was a rebuttal to the contention that ReasonTV is a legitimate media outlet. I provided evidence that it is both a think tank and corporate front group.

Do you understand the difference between a think tank and a media outlet?

-I did not disqualify Reason(sic)TV's arguments out of hand, I rebutted them. You posted an article. I read it. I took it apart.

Do you understand the difference between dismissing an argument out of hand and rebutting one?

If you get sick of arguing about arguing and decide you'd like to talk about the substance of this thread, let me know.

@dystopianfuturetoday

It really doesn't seem like you have the monopoly on legitimate sentiments that you believe you have.

All the points you accused Blankfist of apply equally to you:
-[Dystopianfuturetoday] does not like the information [from Reason].
-He cannot find any evidence to suggest that the damning information is false.
-He then tries to discredit the article [from Reason] on the basis that the site it was posted on has a political bias.

To paraphrase your words: that SourceWatch, the Huffington Post, and Reason are political media outlets isn't grounds to disqualify their arguments.

It's true that libertarians tend to become very economically successful, like Peter Thiel, who also donates to many libertarians causes, but being funded by rich philanthropists like Thiel or Al Gore doesn't disqualify arguments.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>>

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.
And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.
CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email subscription. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.
No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.



Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.

And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.

CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email newsletter. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.

No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:

Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.

Looks like "Energy in Depth" is another bullshit oil industry front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids. Hydraulic fracturing of underground geological formations, commonly called "fracking," was invented by the Halliburton Company. It is done to increase the amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from existing wells. [1]

Energy in Depth denounces DeGette's proposed fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” In June, 2009, Energy in Depth started a multimillion dollar lobbying and public relations campaign aimed at derailing public health legislation that would require the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids. In addition to a Web site, EID's campaign includes a Twitter feed, a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and an aggressive advertising campaign. [1]

Energy in Depth trumpets the economic contribution oil and gas drilling makes, and the numbers of people employed by the industry.

>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^nanrod:
I know this is all bullshit because T. Boone Pickens was on the Daily Show and he assured me that no water well has ever been contaminated by fracking. He wouldn't lie would he?

And neither would Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth, who has told the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for the Oscar for best documentary feature.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011
/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urges-oscar-judges-to-steer-99256.html
Besides, it is good that North Americans are once again getting a small taste of what many petro-states have have to endure over the decades to fuel a lifestyle of excess.

GeesusFreak: There are plenty of private prisons. Once you drown democracy in the bathtub, business will be free to make up their own laws, and lock up who ever they want for whatever reason they desire. You take so much for granted.

blankfist: you are so caught up in partisanship. We need corporate money out of all politics, out of libertarian/right wing front groups, and out of Republican/Democrat/Libertarian campaigns. Also, do you see how corrupt your own ideology has become. At one point you were against corporate power, and now that I've finally convinced you that your ideological influences are heavily funded by corporations, you've tossed that integrity out the window, falling back on the sad and disappointing sentiment, 'It's OK because everyone else is doing it too.'

Do you and G. notice that corporations use the same arguments you do, about government and tyranny and deregulation and self regulating markets? Does this not give you even a moment of pause or self reflection? If we all agree that corporate influence is corruptive, then why do you two parrot their talking points as if they were your own?

Is it possible that you've been manipulated, that marketing executives have figured out what makes you tick, and bent you to their will with self serving pie-in-the-sky rhetoric about liberty and individuality? I can't understand why anyone would argue against representative democracy? If the power doesn't rest with citizens, then who? Do you realize what life was like before democracy? Kings, Dictators, Dukes, Chiefs, Barrons and emperors? You take so much for granted.

This government is the result of 30 years of deregulation, easing of campaign finance laws and the realization of foolish market concepts like trickle down economics. The government we have is a direct result of the types of ideas you both champion. This is the government you deserve.

First off, it's very cool that you are tackling these tough questions. If you want to hit me up with a list of your own, I'll take a shot at them. Let's hash these out one at a time for the sake of clarity.

Funding - You seem to be tacitly conceding the fact that your highly principled, anti corporate movement is funded by corporations. This is at odds with your claim that market libertarianism rises above partisan politics and special interest groups. Instead you are saying Democrats do it too. Does that make it OK?

Let's take this topic a little deeper.

It is true that corporations fund viable candidates from all parties - though more money is spent on politicians on the right - but you don't see the same kind of funding behind liberal ideology. Current corporate funding of think tanks and front groups almost exclusively favors market libertarian/right wing organizations.

In the 90's, corporations attempted to create a Liberal mouthpiece for their message, called the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council). This group had much success early on - they are credited with helping their candidate, Bill Clinton, get elected to the executive office. They also nurtured the careers of Joe Loserman and Dick Gephardt.

Obama was briefly a member as well until he parted ways on ideological grounds. I find it interesting that in the 2008 primaries, Hillary (a DLCer) used the same arguments against Obama that right wing think tanks used against him, probably because the DLC IS a right wing think tank in disguise If you remember correctly, Obama barely wrestled the nomination away from Hillary with a clever strategy that won him the states that had a particular caucasing process. (In my own opinion, I think Hillary was the 'the chosen one' to become president.)

The fact that Obama and Hillary, two DLC candidates were the only contenders in this race does raise some questions, but to take that line of questioning further means you would need to take a more skeptical look at your own politics too.

I digress...

Anyway, since the 2000 elections, the DLC has become a dirty word among liberals, and no corporately funded front groups have been able to gain any traction among the liberal mainstream since.

Beyond the fact that corporations choose to give their money to libertarian/right wing thing tanks, Koch was actually once a vice presidential candidate for the libertarian party, which seems instructive.

How do you square the fact that corporations are so intimately involved with your party, ideology and its dissemination in a way that they are not with the Democrats?