Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It began as a fairly straight-forward story about a shareholder lawsuit: The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who together own 50 percent of the libertarian Cato Institute, filed suit to recover a 25 percent stake held by longtime chairman William Niskanen, who died last autumn and whose widow has yet to relinquish those shares.
Cato’s shareholder’s agreement is "pretty clear" according to legal writer Alison Frankel: shareholders cannot sell or transfer their shares without first offering them back to the Institute and then to the remaining Cato shareholders. But there’s one legal ambiguity: Cato’s shareholder agreement “doesn’t specifically address what happens when a shareholder dies.”
What started as a rather arcane legal dispute between the Koch brothers and their longtime lieutenant, Cato president Ed Crane, quickly transformed into a PR-manufactured Washington melodrama: The famed and revered (in some quarters) Cato Institute has turned against its Dr. Frankenstein, Charles Koch, attacking its maker with the full range of PR-weaponry that has served Cato effectively over these past four decades. The same pundits who only yesterday fell over themselves defending the billionaire Koch brothers as principled libertarians now denounce their benefactors as venal Republican Party warmongers out to crush the Cato Institute’s “nonpartisan” “independent” “scholarship” for the crime of being, yes, principled libertarians.
Did you hear that Obama eats dogmeat?
Cato is a bunch of embaressed Republicans hiding behind a Libertarian front.
We always hear what Libertarian's are not.
Are they anything beyond a sustained, droning whine?
We always hear what Libertarian's are not.
Are they anything beyond a sustained, droning whine?
If you want to cry about libertarians it'd be polite of you to start your own thread.
We always hear what Libertarian's are not.
Are they anything beyond a sustained, droning whine?
If you want to cry about libertarians it'd be polite of you to start your own thread.
This one seems perfect. Oh but wait.
Did you start it to cry about Republicans?
If you want to cry about libertarians it'd be polite of you to start your own thread.
This one seems perfect. Oh but wait.
Did you start it to cry about Republicans?
The fact that I haven't said anything about Republicans so far in this thread should answer that question.
This one seems perfect. Oh but wait.
Did you start it to cry about Republicans?
The fact that I haven't said anything about Republicans so far in this thread should answer that question.
'non-libertarian, beltway, establishment think tank ' isn't your code for those dirty Republicans, then?
LOL
The fact that I haven't said anything about Republicans so far in this thread should answer that question.
'non-libertarian, beltway, establishment think tank ' isn't your code for those dirty Republicans, then?
LOL
No, actually, it's not.
It began as a fairly straight-forward story about a shareholder lawsuit: The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who together own 50 percent of the libertarian Cato Institute, filed suit to recover a 25 percent stake held by longtime chairman William Niskanen, who died last autumn and whose widow has yet to relinquish those shares.
Catos shareholders agreement is "pretty clear" according to legal writer Alison Frankel: shareholders cannot sell or transfer their shares without first offering them back to the Institute and then to the remaining Cato shareholders. But theres one legal ambiguity: Catos shareholder agreement doesnt specifically address what happens when a shareholder dies.
What started as a rather arcane legal dispute between the Koch brothers and their longtime lieutenant, Cato president Ed Crane, quickly transformed into a PR-manufactured Washington melodrama: The famed and revered (in some quarters) Cato Institute has turned against its Dr. Frankenstein, Charles Koch, attacking its maker with the full range of PR-weaponry that has served Cato effectively over these past four decades. The same pundits who only yesterday fell over themselves defending the billionaire Koch brothers as principled libertarians now denounce their benefactors as venal Republican Party warmongers out to crush the Cato Institutes nonpartisan independent scholarship for the crime of being, yes, principled libertarians.
Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth | The Nation
This is a pretty good article exposing the Cato Institute for what it is, a non-libertarian, beltway, establishment think tank that's been beholden to the state since it moved to Washington.
'non-libertarian, beltway, establishment think tank ' isn't your code for those dirty Republicans, then?
LOL
No, actually, it's not.
A summary paragraph in your article:
'The more you get to know the real Cato Institute, the more you see a rank, powerful rightwing corporate front group deeply woven into the Republican Party machinery, as unprincipled and cynical in its relentless service of the 1 percents interests as it is hostile to the progressive cause.'
It began as a fairly straight-forward story about a shareholder lawsuit: The Koch brothers, Charles and David, who together own 50 percent of the libertarian Cato Institute, filed suit to recover a 25 percent stake held by longtime chairman William Niskanen, who died last autumn and whose widow has yet to relinquish those shares.
Catos shareholders agreement is "pretty clear" according to legal writer Alison Frankel: shareholders cannot sell or transfer their shares without first offering them back to the Institute and then to the remaining Cato shareholders. But theres one legal ambiguity: Catos shareholder agreement doesnt specifically address what happens when a shareholder dies.
What started as a rather arcane legal dispute between the Koch brothers and their longtime lieutenant, Cato president Ed Crane, quickly transformed into a PR-manufactured Washington melodrama: The famed and revered (in some quarters) Cato Institute has turned against its Dr. Frankenstein, Charles Koch, attacking its maker with the full range of PR-weaponry that has served Cato effectively over these past four decades. The same pundits who only yesterday fell over themselves defending the billionaire Koch brothers as principled libertarians now denounce their benefactors as venal Republican Party warmongers out to crush the Cato Institutes nonpartisan independent scholarship for the crime of being, yes, principled libertarians.
Independent and Principled? Behind the Cato Myth | The Nation
This is a pretty good article exposing the Cato Institute for what it is, a non-libertarian, beltway, establishment think tank that's been beholden to the state since it moved to Washington.
Oh my, so lets see the Koch brothers want to take over the Cato institute for libertarian studies. Gee, so what does that have to do with, Obama, unemployment, under employment, exit of manufacturing jobs from US soil, current and unfunded liabilities, decline of dollar purchasing power, national security, class warfare..............the list goes on....... So I guess the real issue is that when someone wants to promote a viewpoint that is not in keeping with your worthless dribble it's time to call out the attack dogs? how pathetic can one get? At least the Cato institute is privately funded not like your Acorn.....
No, actually, it's not.
A summary paragraph in your article:
'The more you get to know the real Cato Institute, the more you see a rank, powerful rightwing corporate front group deeply woven into the Republican Party machinery, as unprincipled and cynical in its relentless service of the 1 percents interests as it is hostile to the progressive cause.'
It's not my article, as I didn't write it.
A summary paragraph in your article:
'The more you get to know the real Cato Institute, the more you see a rank, powerful rightwing corporate front group deeply woven into the Republican Party machinery, as unprincipled and cynical in its relentless service of the 1 percents interests as it is hostile to the progressive cause.'
It's not my article, as I didn't write it.
Dance monkey dance
