Koch Bros. vs. Libertarians (Cato takeover?)

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There are a few Ron Paul supporters on this board that you might call anti-semites but I think they fall on the Republican side of the spectrum. I can't think of anyone that claims to be libertarian on here that is a racist or anti-semite. I personally have nothing against Jews or Israel and I wish them the best. I just want them to pay their own way and fight their own battles. That goes for the rest of the world too.

I know plenty of Ron Paul supporters and have never heard one of them speak of being anti-semitic. From what I can tell most Ron Paul supporters have good college educations, and it's ignorance that leads to bigotry.

Not to mention a collectivist mindset, something a libertarian, who stresses the individual, wouldn't necessarily have.

 

[Paulie]

I personally have nothing against Jews or Israel and I wish them the best. I just want them to pay their own way and fight their own battles.

But that's what makes you an anti-semite. It's either pro-israel, or anti-semite. There's no gray area with these people here.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I personally have nothing against Jews or Israel and I wish them the best. I just want them to pay their own way and fight their own battles.

But that's what makes you an anti-semite. It's either pro-israel, or anti-semite. There's no gray area with these people here.

Personally i have no idea why trying to make Israel dependent on the U.S., whether it be militarily or financially, is somehow pro-Israel or pro-Jew.


Making them dependent on us, and not respecting their sovereignty, seems to be the opposite of a pro-Israel policy.

 

[Paulie]

I personally have nothing against Jews or Israel and I wish them the best. I just want them to pay their own way and fight their own battles.

But that's what makes you an anti-semite. It's either pro-israel, or anti-semite. There's no gray area with these people here.

Personally i have no idea why trying to make Israel dependent on the U.S., whether it be militarily or financially, is somehow pro-Israel or pro-Jew.


Making them dependent on us, and not respecting their sovereignty, seems to be the opposite of a pro-Israel policy.

That's what happens when the MSM does your thinking for you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How many people here actually hate Jewish people, as opposed to simply being told that they hate Jewish people?

Pretty much all of them.

I myself have been called an anti-semite on this board, and yet I can assure you I have no problem with Jewish people. Same thing with "wanting Israel destroyed." Who actually wants Israel to be destroyed, and what does that even mean?

How about Ron Paul supporter, PF Tinmore?

And who actually supports Hamas as opposed to simply thinking Palestinians are getting a raw deal?

Yeah, raw deal by suffering that JOOOOZZZZ should occupy even on inch of Muslim lands.

Most of the Ron Paul supporters in this forum are Jooo haters - that is simple fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We also have to ask, is, assuming your percentages are correct in the first place which is a stretch,

How can a question be a stretch?

this board representative of the general populous? I'm guessing not.

I sure the fuck hope not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How many people here actually hate Jewish people, as opposed to simply being told that they hate Jewish people?

Pretty much all of them.

I myself have been called an anti-semite on this board, and yet I can assure you I have no problem with Jewish people. Same thing with "wanting Israel destroyed." Who actually wants Israel to be destroyed, and what does that even mean?

How about Ron Paul supporter, PF Tinmore?

And who actually supports Hamas as opposed to simply thinking Palestinians are getting a raw deal?

Yeah, raw deal by suffering that JOOOOZZZZ should occupy even on inch of Muslim lands.

Most of the Ron Paul supporters in this forum are Jooo haters - that is simple fact.

Uh huh.

I'm not familiar with this poster. Can you link us to a post showing he's a Ron Paul supporter and wants Israel destroyed. I'd also like clarification as to what destruction of Israel means, if you don't mind.

No, that's not the raw deal I'm referring to, though your response kind of proves my point that people tend to overreact when it comes to Israel.

I've yet to see any evidence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We also have to ask, is, assuming your percentages are correct in the first place which is a stretch,

How can a question be a stretch?

this board representative of the general populous? I'm guessing not.

I sure the fuck hope not.

Your claims are what I'm referring to as a stretch.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But that's what makes you an anti-semite. It's either pro-israel, or anti-semite. There's no gray area with these people here.

So you would say that Ron Paul supporters like Eots, Douger, and Jos are NOT Anti-Semites?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But that's what makes you an anti-semite. It's either pro-israel, or anti-semite. There's no gray area with these people here.

So you would say that Ron Paul supporters like Eots, Douger, and Jos are NOT Anti-Semites?

The only one of them I'm familiar with is eots, and I don't believe he's an anti-semite. I've never seen anything from him that made me think he hated Jews, at any rate. Though I don't generally spend much time in the Conspiracy Theory forum, where I believe much of his posting takes place.

 

[LibertyForAll]

even if they all are which I am not sure of 3 or 4 is not Most...... just sayin

 

[Synthaholic]

"Who the Hell is Going to Take a Think Tank Seriously If It's Controlled by Billionaire Oil Guys?" Cato's President Speaks.


This afternoon, as the Koch PR arm was blasting out a memo about the War for Cato, the libertarian think tank's board was meeting to talk about membership. Before today, the sixteen-member board had seven members affiliated in some way with the Kochs. That put them very close to majority control. Today, the board's majority agreed to simply expand to 20 members, invoking a bylaw that allows that many people to serve if it's so desired. They added four people -- William A. Dunn, John C. Malone, Lewis E. Randall, and Donald G. Smith -- who are more supportive of the non-Koch faction. "We now have a 13-7 majority," said Ed Crane, Cato's president since 1977. "It was a contentious meeting." When was the last time the board had 20 members? "I don't think we ever have."

I talked to Crane about the latest Koch accusations and about the new moves. A lightly edited transcript follows.

Slate: I wanted to get your response to this umpteenth he-said, he-said letter. The argument in here is about how their ideas for the organization are being expressed -- they say you're not telling the truth about what they're trying to do.

Crane: You've seen the names of the people they've nominated for our board. They're all conservative, Koch Industries supplicants. My god, if they're not trying to take over for Koch's purposes -- it's so transparent, it's obvious. Charles likes to create his own reality, build a bubble around him, but they're pretty hamfisted about the way they're going about this. David Koch was a friend of mine until Charles said, not anymore.

Slate: When was that?

Crane: I guess it became contentious at a board dinner we had. Nancy Pfotenhauer -- they'd put her and Kevin Gentry on our board. Both of them were Republican activists, and social conservatives. Never been to a Cato event, never given a dime to Cato. Nice people, but didn't have the stature to be on our board. At this dinner, she starts lecturing us on how Cato's spending too much on physical capital and not enough on human capital. She has no clue! So I tell her, this is a proper thing to bring up at a board meeting. But this is a dinner. She kept talking! So I got up and maybe yelled at her a little, stomped out, and that's the excuse they've been using to say I'm not civil. David's memo is just off the wall. My goodness, you'd think I was Simon Legree or something.

Crane: The really insulting thing is that he talks about five shareholders, and one is a "former Koch employee." It implies, "we could have gotten rid of Crane at any time." Well, the longtime employee has a name. It's George Pearson. He's a man of incredible integrity. The idea they could have forced him to kick me and Bill Niskanen out is insulting. It's just the way they are. And to say it the way they said it -- or whoever wrote it for them, David can't write -- it's indictive of what they do.

Slate: One thing that the letter mentions, specifically, is that you criticized the Kochs when you talked to Jane Mayer for her New Yorker story about them.

Crane: Jane knows I'm pissed at her. I told her that off the record. I told her at the top of the interview. First off she says, I'm doing a story on the libertarian impact on the Tea Party movement. I was suspicious of that to begin with. Within five minutes, it's clear that she wants to do a hatchet job on the Kochs. She's a better journalist than that. You don't need to lie to people. I said, look, I'll tell you things about the Kochs. Ninety percent of this was positive. I admire them as businessmen, I agree with their philanthropy. The most critical thing I said -- she asked, I heard they had a fallout over "market-based management." I said, Well, we had some disagreements on that. I think it's a case of "the emperor has no clothes." Everybody tells him how brilliant this book The Science of Success is, and in my mind it's one of the worst books ever written. The fact-checker calls me up, and I say, yes, I said that, but it was off the record. Go back to the tape and check it. He says, She said the tape recorder didn't work. Well, in those circumstances, when you think the tape recorder is working so the reporter is not taking extensive notes, you infer that things are off the record. I was not happy about that.

Slate: The Mayer incident is the the basis for this argument: "As Ed has shown, he will partner with anyone – including those that oppose Cato and what it stands for – to further his personal agenda at the expense of others working to advance a free society."

Crane: That's a bald-faced lie. There are very few people in town here who do more to help other organizations that are on the same philosophical path as I have. I help all these groups. As far as my personal agenda is concerned, I have told the Kochs -- through Bob [Levy] -- that if you want me to step down, I'll step down. I want to save Cato. I'll step down if it ends this thing. It can't be a wholly owned subsidiary of Koch Industries. Who the hell is going to take a think tank seriously that's controlled by billionaire oil guys? It's just nuts!

I feel the same way about Americans for Prosperity. Why, if you have a grassroots group activist group -- and I'm a free market guy, I'm for AFP -- but why do you make an oil billionaire the chairman? Soros does a lot of this stuff, but he's a hell of a lot more clever about it. To say that I will compromise my principles, or that I'll team up with anybody, that's not true. That Jane Mayer thing is the only substantive thing they can point to, and that was not intended to be public.


More of the interview at the link.

 

[Listening]

You all should actually read the entire article.

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

 

[Listening]

A bump for Cato.

 

[Synthaholic]

You all should actually read the entire article.

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

 

[Listening]

You all should actually read the entire article.

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

What other voices are there for Libertarianism ?

What do you think of LewRockwell.Com ?

 

[percysunshine]

This whole invented controversy started because some liberal was jealous that their own name did not rhyme with the word 'cock'.

 

[Paulie]

You all should actually read the entire article.

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

This is an interesting statement, because the majority of libertarians, classical liberals, whatever, that I know and speak to don't put much stock in Cato. Cato is a special interest group as far as I'm concerned. Libertarians, GOOD ONES anyway, don't put much faith in the idea of groups. And those of us who know better, know not to trust anything coming out of DC.

 

[Paulie]

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

What other voices are there for Libertarianism ?

What do you think of LewRockwell.Com ?

This whole Ron Paul liberty movement has grown basically despite Cato. The hearts and minds of America's youth and many disenchanted conservatives are being won not by Cato, or any other group, but by ideas themselves and an individual with enough ability to spread them.

 

[Synthaholic]

While this issue concerns me, I am not sure what it is that you are looking for here.

I don't like the Koch brothers or anyone else that has concentrated power. In fact, that is what is so strange about the GOP. They say they (we) want decentralized power, states powers, local government and all that, but the guys with the bucks can pull off this kind of crapp.

However, I am not familiar with the nuances of the case. Are you interested in it from a legal standpoint or because it appears the Kochs just want to add it to the stable of GOP gunnships they will be pointing at Obama ?

I'm interested in it because Cato has always been an independent voice for Libertarianism, and that is now in jeopardy.

What other voices are there for Libertarianism ?

What do you think of LewRockwell.Com ?

I used to go there fairly frequently, but lately I've forgotten about it - thanks!

Any Libertarian impulses that I have are generally social issues, not economic/market issues, which I generally do not agree with. I do not believe in an unfettered, unregulated market gone wild.