You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

11
122

[–] explorevoat 11 points 122 points (+133|-11) ago  (edited ago)

I am so tired of the "Koch Boogeyman."

Stories about them are often inaccurate, and they are often presented as a "unique" problem of big money in politics that is only or mainly on the Republican side.

Here are people that gave more to Super-PACS than the Kochs in 2014 (Includes Democrats and Republicans):

Thomas Steyer $73,725,000.00 Fahr, LLC Founder San Francisco CA

Michael Bloomberg $20,008,628.23 Bloomberg LLP Executive New York NY

Paul Singer $9,291,490.01 Elliot Management New York NY

Robert Mercer $8,070,000.00 Renaissance Technologies Co-CEO East Setauket NY

Fred Eychaner $7,900,000.00 Newsweb CEO Chicago IL

J. Joe Ricketts $4,870,000.00 Self-employed Little Jackson WY

George Soros $3,560,000.00 Soros Fund Management Chairman New York NY

Richard Uihlein $4,235,000.00 Uline CEO Chicago IL

Sheldon Adelson $5,000,000.00 Las Vegas Sands Chairman Las Vegas NV

James Simons $3,000,000.00 Euclidean Capital President New York NY

Also - These are the biggest GMO companies. You might notice Koch Industries is not one of the biggest.

Monsanto (US) $4,964m 23%

DuPont (US) $3,300m 15%

Syngenta (Switzerland) $2,018m 9%

Groupe Limagrain (France) $1,226m 6%

Land O' Lakes (US) $917m 4%

KWS AG (Germany) $702m 3%

Bayer Crop Science (Germany) $524m 2%

Sakata (Japan) $396m <2%

DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) $391m <2%

Takii (Japan) $347m <2%

This article is sensationalist and leaves out other relevant information. The title of this submission is clickbait and implies the Koch Brothers did this alone for only the amount of money named. Lots of companies were against this, lots of companies spent more than Koch Industries and its subsidiaries, and lots of companies are more into GMO.

--edit-- This post is just trying to give factual information and context sorely lacking in the linked article. I do not belong to a "GMO side" to those who sent PMs.

Why not also talk about GMO humans, coming soon!

7
53

[–] binky 7 points 53 points (+60|-7) ago 

The title also assumes the only reason GM labeling didn't pass is lobbying.

2
27

[–] explorevoat 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago  (edited ago)

It is fascinating to watch people being downvoated for presenting true information in a neutral fashion. It is my opinion that it is unhealthy to disagree with the truth, as it is a strategy that never seems to work long term for its adherents.

---edit There is an interesting response to this post but it needs to be read completely, and the links followed: reed says,

While I do agree that he shouldn't have been downvoated, mocking people for believing in the "Koch Boogeyman" is far from a "neutral fashion".

I want to respond to reed:

My friend, I want to make clear this opinion to follow is shared with the best of intentions. I feel it might be beneficial to ask the question, "why does reed believe explorevoat is intent on mocking people who believe in a villainous version of Koch Industries presented in the article?"

Lets make sure of the facts - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mock <--- what does it mean if reed says I "mock" people??

Look it up - "Mock" is a harsh word you accused me of doing to people!

Lets look at my real words in my real post - explorevoat says,

I am so tired of the "Koch Boogeyman."

I stated I am tired of the James Bond villain version of Koch Industries. Here, I said how I feel. No one else is mentioned.

Stories about them are often inaccurate, and they are often presented as a "unique" problem of big money in politics that is only or mainly on the Republican side.

I give some evidence that justifies why I feel tired. Then I go on to list facts that apply to this story and bear witness against the absurdity of the clickbait article. Go back and look up "mock" again - never did I do that to readers. I talked about how I felt, then listed a bunch of possibly boring facts.

Can you show me where I did the things you claim? Or is this about your feelings, and not what I actually said?

6
0

[–] weezkitty 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

It almost certainly was. There is little other reason actually ban labeling. Especially against states right

16
10

[–] Schismatic 16 points 10 points (+26|-16) ago 

But guys the KKK isn't bad because the black panthers are racists too!

I'm tired of this bullshit, it's one thing to call liberals out as hypocrites (there are tons) and another thing to say that something someone is doing is okay, because other people are assholes too.

The problem remains that Unions,Corporations and Billionaires have the ability to spend billions of dollars in order to influence the political process.

0
18

[–] theGozarian 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If I read that that title to anyone unbiased, or better yet someone who didn't even know who they were or what gmo is, they would most likely assume that the kochs alone spent money on stopping the labeling of them. I don't think you actually responded to what his point was, which is ironic.

4
12

[–] explorevoat 4 points 12 points (+16|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Please show where I presented a value judgement, deeming anything to be "bad" or "good" regarding influencing the political process. I think you had an argument you wanted to make in advance which responds to things I did not say. Did you see what you wanted to see in my post or is it actually there? At most you might make the argument that I imply that being more informed is good. How does your response to my post make sense given that? I think you misunderstood me. I am going back and re-reading and Schismatic replied to an imaginary version of my post. There is an insight here for why making common ground can be hard. Where did I,

"say that something someone is doing is okay, because other people are assholes too." "call liberals out as hypocrites" argue that, "guys the KKK isn't bad because the black panthers are racists too!"

None of the above applies to my post remotely, my point was we need more relevant information, and that Koch Industries is often showcased as a sort of "Dr. Evil" organization, a stand-in main character, even when they are a bit player or have nothing to do with the events at all. I did not say Koch was "okay." We should just be better informed.

0
2

[–] jpw42 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem remains that Unions,Corporations and Billionaires have the ability to spend billions of dollars in order to influence the political process.

The problem is that people do not see it as necessary to fully educate themselves and there for fall pray to the PR that the Unions, Corporations, and Billionaires spend money on.

0
1

[–] juslen 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If only taxpayer money could be used to influence politicians! Oh wait... Come on, the joke is that corporations aren't people, but whether you like it or not, corporations, unions, politicians.. they all cater in one way or another to the people. If you want to blame it on money.. get ready to abandon any political or economic system which will always be dominated by people seeking positions of power and influence. And they will always get there by catering to the ignorant masses. So if you want to bring an end to corruption, you have to be ready to purge society of the dumb and ignorant.

0
3

[–] BoiseNTheHood 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Meanwhile, mention George Soros and libs either clam up or scream "FALSE EQUIVALENCE!"

0
2

[–] PeptoBismolMonk 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Glad to see some additional information being added to the discussion. Yes they may be the most 'talked about topic', but we must look at who is having the greatest effect/affect.