warren buffet and nu

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

 

 

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

 

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

[StPaulHusker]

This can't be a serious thread.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

So a person with liberaterian ideals should support someone who has no chance; or rather, should that person support someone who may win and is closer to thier ideology. You tell me what you would do.

 

It's funny to me how certain people choose to demonize a person who disagree with them (I'm not talking about you), create a negative characture of them, and propagate that image, and people/media without thought or review accept said falsehood - even attacking those who disagree without out even entertaining the thought they may be wrong (yes, I know a lot of you will use this comment against me and claim its ironic - I'm willing to accept that challenge and debate you on the point and see where our discussion goes).

 

 

The point is that the Koch Brothers claim to be Libertarian only as long as it serves them. When it gets inconvenient -- like all the ways you can use the federal government to your financial benefit, or the personal "freedoms" you really don't want to see other people exercising -- then you betray your core Libertarian values.

 

I think a lot of folks would be Libertarian, but a political party that hates government and hierarchies is tough to organize and sell. The notion that the Republican party will at least uphold the promise of small government has been disproved by every recent Republican administration, which shifts the tax dollars to the players on their team and blows up the deficit.

 

The Koch Brothers have been pretty clear about their desire to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition programs, the unions, the EPA and other things that would essentially take America back to the 19th Century, which wasn't as fun as some might remember.

 

Although Husker fans might fondly recall the beatdown Coach Frank Crawford's team put on the Omaha YMCA in the 1894 season. Boy, they don't play football like that anymore.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

So a person with liberaterian ideals should support someone who has no chance; or rather, should that person support someone who may win and is closer to thier ideology. You tell me what you would do.

 

It's funny to me how certain people choose to demonize a person who disagree with them (I'm not talking about you), create a negative characture of them, and propagate that image, and people/media without thought or review accept said falsehood - even attacking those who disagree without out even entertaining the thought they may be wrong (yes, I know a lot of you will use this comment against me and claim its ironic - I'm willing to accept that challenge and debate you on the point and see where our discussion goes).

You're kind of condescending, Guy. I don't believe I was slyly demonizing Buffett, I was pretty clear that I don't trust him.

 

 

Bit of a difference between merely not trusting Buffet and your seemingly factual assertion that he controls politicians, the President and a sympathetic press to hide his misdeeds and agenda.

 

See how tricky this is?

[Hedley Lamarr]

 

 

Memorial Stadium concessions would be ran by Dairy Queen if Buffet had his way.

I don't see an issue with this.

Chicken basket with fries and gravy, please.

Extra gravy

[Hoosker]

 

 

 

Memorial Stadium concessions would be ran by Dairy Queen if Buffet had his way.

I don't see an issue with this.

Chicken basket with fries and gravy, please.

Extra gravy

 

Oh I'd be all for it!

 

DQ is life.

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

 

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

Current 'Murican style 'Libertarianism' is basically a call for full on, unregulated corporate authoritarian/facist rule(just ask Ayn Rand) and the Koch Bros apparently want to own the whole world, like most of their ilk. The Koch Bros are big time anti Labor, union busters as shown by their puppet boy Scott Walker, and if they continue getting their way in 'Murica you will see the country slide back to a raher 3rd world scenario(extreme rich and poor) reminiscent of the USA before FDR.

 

Libertarianism actually has it's roots in 'Libertarian' or 'Anarcho Socialism' of the Enlightenment period of France and England( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism#Political_roots ), but of course, everything in 'Murica gets translated into capitalism, even though 'Murica has practiced state sponsored(publically funded--->privately profitted) 'capitalism' for many decades now.

Capitalism and libertarianism have similar philosophical roots and are by no means are exclusive (as your post suggests). They are both based in the principal of freedom, which at its core involves an individual's property rights, and captilism has been the single greatest source of (all) rights and prosperity in the history of the world.

 

(People have distorted the terms repeatedly and such confusion makes any real debate problematic until such terms can be agreed upon. Incidentally, I have heard a number of presentations and quotes from Koch, and he supports the libertarian ideals set forth above (or something close to it). Very few people are true libertarians, but the same is usually true of any party)

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

No, they're just awful. They're everything wrong with this country.

Tell me exactly what makes them bad? I dare you.

Start a thread in the P and R forum and I and many others will. But for now I'll just let you look at Kansas, and the article Rolling Stone wrote about Koch industries and how they denied nothing in their rebuttle.

Rolling stone? That's the source you chose to bring up? Even Harry Reid or mother jones has more credibility.

 

But ignoring that, ill summarize the points made in partisan piece in a non partisan manner:

 

The Koch brothers, who grew a large energy company, support politicians and policies they believe in and which may personally benefit themselves. The energy component of the company has been the subject of government and societal scrutiny because of environment concerns, both relating to global warming and contamination among other things. Years ago they alledgely used a benefits system which was based upon profits, and some employees suggest that such system effectively penalized employees who supported costly safety measures.

 

That's it (admittedly, I didn't finish all the way but I'm pretty sure above covers it all). So while we have murders, rapists, and other mad men in the world, they are considered public enemy no. 1. Why? Because of the politics they support. if they didn't support the candidates they do, most people wouldn't even know who they are.

 

One of the most telling points is that they have been investigated and probed by like almost no other outside of politics, and what is left to attack them is, in my opinion, weak. If you applied that scrutiny to any business or person that (according to the piece) generates 151 billion a year, I'm pretty sure you can find things some people won't like. The failure to list thier charitable efforts (apart from the politics) and provide the positive things they have done reeks of bias and ulterior motive.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Hey, the Koch Brothers give tons of money to NPR and the Arts, which confuses a lot of people.

 

But with all due respect to Capitalism -- which I find more admirable than all the other imperfect systems -- the evidence is pretty clear that giving billionaires more of what they want is not in the best interests of America. That's what Warren Buffett said, which confused a lot of people.

 

I can see nothing illegal in what the Koch Brothers doing. No conspiracy, either.

 

I'm taking the Koch Brothers at their word and in broad daylight, and I think they are worth fighting against.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

No, they're just awful. They're everything wrong with this country.

Tell me exactly what makes them bad? I dare you.

Start a thread in the P and R forum and I and many others will. But for now I'll just let you look at Kansas, and the article Rolling Stone wrote about Koch industries and how they denied nothing in their rebuttle.

Rolling stone? That's the source you chose to bring up? Even Harry Reid or mother jones has more credibility.

But ignoring that, ill summarize the points made in partisan piece in a non partisan manner:

The Koch brothers, who grew a large energy company, support politicians and policies they believe in and which may personally benefit themselves. The energy component of the company has been the subject of government and societal scrutiny because of environment concerns, both relating to global warming and contamination among other things. Years ago they alledgely used a benefits system which was based upon profits, and some employees suggest that such system effectively penalized employees who supported costly safety measures.

That's it (admittedly, I didn't finish all the way but I'm pretty sure above covers it all). So while we have murders, rapists, and other mad men in the world, they are considered public enemy no. 1. Why? Because of the politics they support. if they didn't support the candidates they do, most people wouldn't even know who they are.

One of the most telling points is that they have been investigated and probed by like almost no other outside of politics, and what is left to attack them is, in my opinion, weak. If you applied that scrutiny to any business or person that (according to the piece) generates 151 billion a year, I'm pretty sure you can find things some people won't like. The failure to list thier charitable efforts (apart from the politics) and provide the positive things they have done reeks of bias and ulterior motive.

If they didn't support the candidates they do in the way they do, I wouldn't have half the problem with them that I do. The things they do may not be illegal, but their is a distinction between legality and morality/ethics.

 

Like I said if you want to discuss it start a thread in P&R. I'm just here to give clever quips now.

[Dagerow]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

Won't deny that.

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

No, they're just awful. They're everything wrong with this country.

Tell me exactly what makes them bad? I dare you.

Start a thread in the P and R forum and I and many others will. But for now I'll just let you look at Kansas, and the article Rolling Stone wrote about Koch industries and how they denied nothing in their rebuttle.

Rolling stone? That's the source you chose to bring up? Even Harry Reid or mother jones has more credibility.

But ignoring that, ill summarize the points made in partisan piece in a non partisan manner:

The Koch brothers, who grew a large energy company, support politicians and policies they believe in and which may personally benefit themselves. The energy component of the company has been the subject of government and societal scrutiny because of environment concerns, both relating to global warming and contamination among other things. Years ago they alledgely used a benefits system which was based upon profits, and some employees suggest that such system effectively penalized employees who supported costly safety measures.

That's it (admittedly, I didn't finish all the way but I'm pretty sure above covers it all). So while we have murders, rapists, and other mad men in the world, they are considered public enemy no. 1. Why? Because of the politics they support. if they didn't support the candidates they do, most people wouldn't even know who they are.

One of the most telling points is that they have been investigated and probed by like almost no other outside of politics, and what is left to attack them is, in my opinion, weak. If you applied that scrutiny to any business or person that (according to the piece) generates 151 billion a year, I'm pretty sure you can find things some people won't like. The failure to list thier charitable efforts (apart from the politics) and provide the positive things they have done reeks of bias and ulterior motive.

If they didn't support the candidates they do in the way they do, I wouldn't have half the problem with them that I do. The things they do may not be illegal, but their is a distinction between legality and morality/ethics.

 

Like I said if you want to discuss it start a thread in P&R. I'm just here to give clever quips now.

Fair enough.

[BigRedBuster]

George Soros is laughing pretty hard at this thread.

[Savage Husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's a good businessman, but he's a shark.

 

Won't deny that.

 

 

Funny how his train oil spills don't make splash headlines like other environmental spills do.

 

There have been plenty of train crashes and they do make headlines, especially when there's a big fireball like the one in Virginia. Mainstream media covers them, and NBC News reported that oil train dereailments hit record numbers in 2014. Even the Daily Show did a segment on how trains might be more dangerous than pipelines. If the implication is that Buffett can buy, or simply get sympathetic treatment from liberal media on railroad related stories, it's a dubious connection. Train spills are typically much smaller and more easily contained than pipeline bursts, especially where water is concerned, so they might affect fewer people. The Keystone Pipeline story is pretty interesting in that it's hardly unique as pipelines go, but environmental organizations decided to draw a line in the stand and make Keystone a litmus test. I also think they really, really hate the Koch Brothers.

It's not even just liberal media, that he also owns, it's politicians and a president that veto the bill. But even heavy liberal media in Seattle WA are finally coming around to questioning BNSF and their lack of reporting spills.

I can definitely buy your last sentence.

Agree. The Koch Brothers are just awful human beings.

Yes, demonize people who have different ideas on how to address problems. (For those who don't know, they are libertarians that have the audacity to support ideals that they believe in, many of which liberals now embrace (gay marriage, legalize pot, etc.) and claim moral superiority).

It was a wee joke, aimed at a poster who was slyly demonizing a man with different ideas on how to address problems.

 

In truth, I would support the candidacy of a genuine Libertarian. And since America has an established Libertarian Party, I can't wait to see the Libertarian candidates the Koch Brothers will be funding with the billion dollars they've promised in the coming election cycle.

 

I think they're awful but hey....prove me wrong Koch Brothers!

So a person with liberaterian ideals should support someone who has no chance; or rather, should that person support someone who may win and is closer to thier ideology. You tell me what you would do.

It's funny to me how certain people choose to demonize a person who disagree with them (I'm not talking about you), create a negative characture of them, and propagate that image, and people/media without thought or review accept said falsehood - even attacking those who disagree without out even entertaining the thought they may be wrong (yes, I know a lot of you will use this comment against me and claim its ironic - I'm willing to accept that challenge and debate you on the point and see where our discussion goes).

You're kind of condescending, Guy. I don't believe I was slyly demonizing Buffett, I was pretty clear that I don't trust him.

Bit of a difference between merely not trusting Buffet and your seemingly factual assertion that he controls politicians, the President and a sympathetic press to hide his misdeeds and agenda.

 

See how tricky this is?

You're gonna talk about how self serving the Koch Brothers are, but you're going to give Buffett a pass and deny his influence on politicians is laughable.

 

It's a wee bit hyporcritical.

[Guy Chamberlin]

And here I thought I was pointing out the hypocrisy. At least in how we define "slyly demonizing."

 

guess I'll stick with post #56. That's just how I feel.

[Husker66]

mr buffet, one of the world wealthiest people, is one i wonder how much he supports nu. oregon has a very wealthy supporter, that spent millions on that program to make it one of the coolest places for a athlete to be at.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/7/31/4574556/oregon-football-building-new

 

i wonder why mr buffet does not give nu a few milion (pocket change) to upgade nu facilities like oregon, ,,,nu would probably be able to pursuade more recruits if he did.

isn't he building a new business college at NU? not new football facilities but hey, that's not a small thing either and maybe more inline with his values...Oregon probably needed $250M just to get into the 2000's and its probably one of Nikes biggest marketing tools for their brand......Knight is a brilliant marketer...