Those "evil right-wing" Koch Brothers support reduced defense spending, repealing the PATRIOT Act, drug legalization, and gay marriage. Obama is on record against all of these. Knowing is half the battle. Source
With marriage comes divorce. This is no doubt a way to give more money to money grubbing lawyers. Alimony won't be a problem though, since both partners would be men; the fact that both will be giving up 75% of their pay to to the other cancels it out.
Anyone of majority age should be able to enter a matrimonial contract with any person or persons they see fit, in any combination and under any legal terms, and government should enforce it like any other contract. Contrarily, churches have no duty to wed or recognize the wedding of anyone they choose not to. Why would you think it would be anything else?
The Koch Brothers want to convince me they support all that? Let me see them on [yt=THIS bandwagon]4x9bkXVccAs[/yt]
Wow, a magazine that gets a lot of money from the Kochs and which has been controlled by the Kochs for the last five years says the Kochs are great guys. Color me surprised.
Of course, they're also behind the Tea Party. They're probably just continuing with the First Two Rules of Lobbying, adapting them from Congress to astroturf: #1 Always give money to all sides so everyone's beholden to you. #2 Make sure whatever issues they're publically fighting about don't bother you either way, so your agenda gets done in the background.
No, they're not. So instead of just stuffing things in your ass, you're pulling them out now. Shut the fuck up, Packard.
I'm assuming you know the evidence in this matter; if not, I'll gather links and post them. But assuming you know, will you fast forward to the point where you explain why you disagree?
Koch: “We have not provided funding to the tea party organizations which are being organized throughout the country and, until recently, we had never been approached by a tea party group for funding. We have publicly supported Americans for Prosperity Foundation since 1984 and Americans for Prosperity since 2004. We have never considered these institutions to be tea party organizations. Whether or not they are considered to be tea party organizations will not affect our support of them. We believe the tea party movement is a response to the growing frustration of many Americans to government overspending. We share these concerns and encourage citizens to express their opinions in a respectful and civil manner.” If you quote anything related to the discredited and disgraceful Jane Meyer hit piece or some Media Matters horseshit, you lower your already piss poor credibility even further.
You're suggesting I prove a negative? Yeah, we educated folk know that doesn't happen. They denied it on record. Your move, you ambisexual Teutonic tit.
My move? My move is still that their denial is expected; they wouldn't be following the rules of lobbying outlined above if they didn't deny this. Btw, in googling your quote to find the source you omitted (it's from a response by a Koch spokesperson to video footage of David Koch saying the direct opposite), I was also reminded that they endorsed Romney for President in 2008. So that's at least three sides they're backing at the same time (unless you consider Romney to be either Tea Party or in favour of gay marriage; you never know what you'll come up with).
Aaron Sorkin had one great show. Newsroom isn't it, functional one-dimensional melodrama notwithstanding.
Having a position that coincides with the tea party is a pretty far cry from being "behind the tea party." Show your evidence or shut the fuck up. In fact, just shut the fuck up, since 1) it's clear you don't know what you're talking about anyway, 2) you are wholly uninformed and 3) your pathetic general lack of education makes communication pointless, because I can't talk down to your level of ignorance.
so are you talking about Sports Night or The West Wing? Because I never saw the former, but loved the latter. And The Newsroom is basically the same show as The West Wing, with a different setting. They even do the same Walk & Talk thing!
Never saw Sports Night. And it's not as if Newsroom isn't good popcorn, and it has the same benefit of making you feel all heroic and important about going to work in an office. But IMO, it doesn't get close to TWW. Writing and acting: This is how you do it. [YT="Two Cathedrals"]dVgK5HKj3P4[/YT] (And that you never realize how much bullshit it all is just proves that it works, as long as the scene lasts.)
One of the reasons The West Wing was so good was the lead. The above is a great example. It's well written dialogue performed by a legendary level actor. Sheen carried a lot of meh episodes and made many of the great ones into amazing episodes.
^^ True. Then again, Sheen has also been much worse with material that wasn't suited to him. Remember the Soul Hunter on Babylon 5? Neither do I, because there was nothing to remember.
Completely agree. Sorkin really knew how to get the best out of Sheen. The Newsroom is okay. The writing is what you would expect from Sorkin, there is just nobody there to carry scenes.
Sports Night was a great show. And if you've already seen The West Wing, it's fun to see the actors who played characters like Donna, Will Bailey, Mrs. Santos and Sam's call-girl friend in earlier roles.
All this talk of Sorkin and not one word about the masterpiece that was STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP??!?!? "Matt...are you on drugs???" "He's STANDING IN A FIELD IN AFGHANISTAN!!!!"
