Published: Thursday, April 3 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Aren't the Koch brothers doing the same thing with their buying... er,
"support" ... of conservative politicians actively working to deny
climate change and action to preserve our fossil fuel-based economy? Koch-funded ALEC has been out to stop renewable energy in many states through
legislation -- fortunately, they've not been as successful (yet), even in
red states where renewable energy is expanding rapidly and bringing economic
benefits across rural communities.
I hope the letter writer is even more upset about the SCOTUS rulings on Citizens
United and yesterday's McCutcheon v. FEC.'cause you
ain't seen NOTHING yet...
Anyone can say anything that he wants about anything that he thinks is
important. Are we foolish enough to give more credence to what someone says
just because he has money? If that's the case, no one would have ever
listened to Christ. If a person wants to spend his money supporting
people who believe the way that he does, he can. It's his money. What
would we think if the government decided that one movie a year was enough? What
would we think if the government told us that we could buy only one subscription
per year to a news magazine or listen to only one radio station? We
are Americans. We limit the duties of government. The government does not us
rights. Those rights are inalienable, gifts from God. The Preamble
starts: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."
If money could talk, oh wait the SCOTUS just said it can and freely.Next
order of conservative business, granting personhood to money.
@ LDS Liberal, oh that you would be correct, but based on history, the writer
surely will have a different conclusion for the Kochs, Adelson and other right
wingers. At least with Bloomberg, his efforts were his attempt to help the
people, agree with the policy initiative or not. I know NYC really really well,
and it is a better place. But with Kochs and Adelson, I see absolutely nothing
whatsover in their activities that even remotely are intended to serve the
interests of the people. It's about protecting their personal interests.
Therein lies the difference. Bloomberg could be voted out. The Kochs and
Adelson cannot. There is a difference.
Actually, Russell. I saw Bill Gates on Charlie Rose. He was not
patronizing. They were decent suggestions IMO that should be given
re: LDS LiberalIsn't interesting how SCOTUS which leans to the
Right of Center has ruled on Obamacare & McCutcheon v. FEC.If
they were to overturn the abomination known as Kelo v New London then I'd
do cartwheels up and down Cougar stadium during the subsequent Stadium of Fire.
Russell, I'm sure if the billionaires agreed with you, you'd think
they were highly intelligent. You probably think the Koch brothers are geniuses.
"Anyone can say anything that he wants about anything that he thinks is
important."Wow, Mike, that's a pretty broad statement. So
does that mean that you are opposed to the government interfering with purveyors
of pornography, racially charged hate speech, libel, slander, fraud, perjury,
incitement to insurrection, unauthorized disclosure of classified information,
and other forms of what most people consider objectionable speech? That sounds
pretty liberal IMO.
I never though having money made you smarter. But that doesn't mean you
can't use your money in political ways. But I don't respect the
opinion of a rich person any more than any other person.===What's with all the Koch brother comments? Did they say on MSNBC last
night, "If you run out of things to say... just bring op the Koch
brothers"?The Koch brothers didn't ban sodas, trans fats,
etc, for the masses, or tell us what we can or can't eat. And I've
never seen them on TV telling us what to do. I don't think I'd
recognize either of them if they did appear on TV.I don't know
anybody who looks to the Koch brothers for wisdom. They may look to them for
money though.I know they use their money to advance their political
views (as well as using it for many humanitarian causes)... but that's not
the topic (thinking money = wisdom)===We all know people
with money have more political clout (no problem with that). But I hope nobody
here actually thinks that money makes you smarter.
The billionaires have been throwing their money away and supporting losers.
"Apparently, these billionaires believe that they can buy anything with
money — and, again, apparently, they are right.Russell
Bender"======== Citizens United, now McCutcheon.So -- Yes Russell - Billionaires CAN buy anything they
want with their money, including Politicians and Elections.As for
Money making you Wise, I submit; Paris Hilton, Justin Beiber, and Linsay
Lohan as a good examples of that.
OMMBillionaires like George Soros for instance? Or Oprah, who
basically used her TV show as a launching pad for Obama. She's a
billionaire. Yup. Billionaires can buy a lot of influence. That's why it
is good to have them on both sides of the political isle. Balances things out.
To "Baron Scarpia" no the Koch brothers are not doing the same thing.
The Koch brothers want to get rid of laws and allow people to make decisions on
their own.Lets start with a simple example. We have the Food
Pyramid, Food Plate, or whatever they call it this week for what the government
wants us to eat. Why is the government telling us what we should eat? Why
can't I determine what my body needs in terms of nutrition, why do we need
government programs to tell me what is good? There are many other laws and
programs out there that are simply designed as ways that the government makes
decisions for you.The Koch brothers would do away with most of those
programs and laws, making it so that YOU have to use your own wisdom to conduct
happy2bhereclearfield, UTOMMBillionaires like George
Soros for instance? Or Oprah, who basically used her TV show as a launching pad
for Obama. She's a billionaire. Yup. Billionaires can buy a lot of
influence. That's why it is good to have them on both sides of the
political isle. Balances things out.12:26 p.m. April 3, 2014===== So, Before you start your Victory lap, You
might want to agree with those of us on the Left that this was a HORRIBLE
decision by the SCOTUS.I cuts both ways -- So, we're
against it for ALL parties, and for the exact same reason.That's called - Integrity.
Curmudgeon,The 1st Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."That is the Supreme Law of the Land. It
doesn't matter what I think about certain kinds of speech. The speakers
are guaranteed the right to say what they want. They, just like all of us, will
be held accountable for every word and for every thought, but if they want to
use their mouths or their money for inappropriate "speech", they can.If we were to abridge the right of speech, then we would have to
acknowledge that Government gives us rights. That is false. We were given all
rights by our Creator, not by government.Freedom requires that we
behave ourselves. We can be in self-inflicted bondage if we allow appetites and
passions to control us. No jail is necessary.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahThe 1st Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."======= Then
why are you against:[religion] - Muslims building in New York or
Satanists in Oklahoma, smoking tobaccco, marijuana and drinking alcohol[speech, press] -- Against pornography or the "Book of Mormon"
Broadway musical, [assemble] -- Unions, Associations, Occupy WallStreet,
ect.You can't say you are for Freedom and Liberty for
all, and then immediately deny it to others you happen to disagree
with.Money is Power, not Speech.
Open Minded Mormon,RE: "Then why are you against:[religion] -
Muslims building in New York"....There you go making your
stereotype-based assumptions about people again.Like if you have a
Conservative point of view... you were automatically against Muslims having a
mosque in NYC.... I know lots of Conservatives who had no problem with it.
Even Glenn Beck was very vocal about the need to observe their right to be
treated like any other religion. These broad brush judgements are
just useless. They don't fit everybody... but you assume they do.We need to quit seeing people as your labels for them, your stereotype
for them, your prejudices about them... Not all Conservatives
opposed the mosque. And many NYC Liberals opposed it. It just doesn't
cut as cleanly as you think.... along political lines.You still only
get 4 posts per day like the rest of us... right? Because this is my last one.
But I'm sure you have lots left.
Open Minded,You're barking up the wrong tree - again. I have
stood for freedom whenever freedom has been challenged. You seem to think that
everyone who doesn't agree with your particular idea of freedom is
anti-freedom. Perhaps it's time that you expanded your viewpoint and
stopped trying to keyhole anyone who disagrees with you. There is no room for
bigotry when discussing our freedoms. There is no room for those who would
impose, by law, or by government regulation, sanctions on any liberty. You know how vocal I was before the "sin tax" was levied on
cigarettes. As much as I am against smoking, I will not impose a "sin
tax" on those who think differently. You may not stand for free
speech, meaning that you would try to silence anyone who disagrees with your
point of view, but I like to read what everyone thinks. By reading, it's
easy to see who believes in freedom and who wants to squelch those who have
This is the same Russell Bender who has letters published on a regular basis?
Surprises me. What I have gotten from his letters over the years is that he is
an ultra-conservative who defends the economic system which helps create
excessive wealth of plutocrats and their disproportionate influence.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments