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.
