RIP David Koch

Sonny noggs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

there will be class war and it will be taken

It is true what they say - give him enough rope and he’ll hang himself.

Class war... nationalisation of resources... now what ideology are these most associated with...

What was that you said about me having a stroke?

Realt Dearg Sec

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

there will be class war and it will be taken

It is true what they say - give him enough ropes and he’ll hang himself.

Class war... nationalisation of resources... now what ideology are these most associated with...

What was that you said about me having a stroke?

So is this the best we can do so? A slide towards climate catastrophe and extinction on the back of the system you love so much. Your last words can be "at least we owned the libs". The epitaph of humanity.

Junkyard Tom

Sonny noggs wrote: »

It is true what they say - give him enough ropes and he’ll hang himself.

Class war... nationalisation of resources... now what ideology are these most associated with...

What was that you said about me having a stroke?

'stop fighting back'.

Got ya.

Junkyard Tom

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Class war... nationalisation of resources... now what ideology are these most associated with...

You must think people are stupid if you don't think what is being waged against people right now isn't class war, same as it ever was.

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Karl Marx Adam Smith.

Sonny noggs

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You must think people are stupid if you don't think what is being waged against people right now isn't class war, same as it ever was.

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Karl Marx Adam Smith.

I’d say you have the odd stroke to the works of Marx, Tom. Am I right?

Junkyard Tom

Sonny noggs wrote: »

I’d say you have the odd stroke to the works of Marx, Tom. Am I right?

You're sitting there imagining that with a big smile on your face ya dirty fecker.

NoteAgent

Dog Man Star wrote: »

i've done the maths. According to notobtuse, over his life time Koch donated $704m from a total wealth of $48billion. That's 1.4%.

That is equivalent to an average Irish worker earning €39,000 a year (average industrial wage) donating, wait for it.........€546. Over his lifetime. 1.4%.

€546 and we are supposed to be impressed?

"Douchbag" (sic)

Ah the classic communist reposte.

If he gave away $47bn I bet you'd say "Ah sure he still has a billion for himself, thats not impressive"

In America (as well as Ireland thankfully) the money you earn is yours to spend however you like.
How would you like it if I started telling you how much to donate?

padd b1975

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's not a get out of hell card.

He probably had loads of carbon offsets.

Like Elton John.

Realt Dearg Sec

[quote=NoteAgent;111076164

In America (as well as Ireland thankfully) the money you earn is yours to spend however you like.
[/quote]


Even if you're spending that money in a way that's likely to hasten the immiseration or possibly extinction of the species?

But let me guess, climate change isn't real either? The market can't possibly be wrong. All hail the glory of the infallible "free" market!

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Breaking up monopolies, making corporations responsible for 'externalities' like pollution and environmental harm, workers having a greater say in their pay and conditions, better corporate governance, taxation in line with wealth not income. Democratic control of resources, major utilities, and 'natural' monopolies like rail, roads power grids etc.

In the longer term AI/Automation will need to come under democratic control or, simply put, there will be class war and it will be taken.

Much higher estate tax.
Break up media monopolies.
Tighten up non-domicile status.
Introduce financial transaction taxes.
Use quantitative easing for public works and pro-social causes.

Dog Man Star

Sonny noggs wrote: »

What are you or anyone else in this thread (me included) doing to prevent children dying of flu beyond paying taxes which contribute to foreign aid and maybe the odd charity direct debit that pays the chugger and charity staff. It was his money, he can choose what he does with it as long as it is legal.

I'm paying tax and not dictating what that tax should be used for. I'm electing people to use my tax to the best effect. Where I live, Perth Australia, that's enough. The ones we elect are our employees. They are public servants. Australia distribute a flu vaccine every year, free if your income is low. That's it, my job is done.

NoteAgent

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I'm not interested in debating the ideological nomenclature of the Soviet Union. It's completely irrelevant. The point, from which you obviously want to distract, is that allowing a tiny number if people to accumulate a vast proportion of the world's wealth, especially through resource extraction and environmental destruction, is both immoral and massively, catastrophically dangerous for the future of humanity. I couldn't give a **** how many cancer wards he funded, it doesn't distract from the immeasurable harm here did to the world in his life. Harm we will all have to live with/die with while he doesn't.

How would you suggest the wealth of the world be divided so?

kowloon

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Yes, only the communist party elite should be allowed to accumulate such wealth, power and privilege.

Completely unregulated capitalism benefits those with the capital. Trying to make it benefit society as a whole while rewarding the people who have the ideas and/or put in the work is the balancing act of social democracy. We could always go back to better times when the lords that lived too well while the peasants starved were eventually dragged out of their homes and beaten to death.

Realt Dearg Sec

NoteAgent wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I'm not interested in debating the ideological nomenclature of the Soviet Union. It's completely irrelevant. The point, from which you obviously want to distract, is that allowing a tiny number if people to accumulate a vast proportion of the world's wealth, especially through resource extraction and environmental destruction, is both immoral and massively, catastrophically dangerous for the future of humanity. I couldn't give a **** how many cancer wards he funded, it doesn't distract from the immeasurable harm here did to the world in his life. Harm we will all have to live with/die with while he doesn't.

How would you suggest the wealth of the world be divided so?

I would suggest that taxation be used. The Koch brothers and other billionaires like them pay a lower tax rate than I do on 50 grand a year. So maybe start there rather than relying on their largesse as they pick and choose the things they deem worthy of spending on, or simply allowing them to spend effectively unlimited money spreading disinformation about causes that serve to increase their power and wealth and that will, ultimately, lead to the destruction of the environment and the future of humanity.

But saving the species is nowadays regarded as some kind of crazy leftist fantasy these days. We need to be "realistic" and accept that this is the only way forward.

Tony EH

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Never ceases to amaze me the craven forelock tugging that some people will engage in regarding the ultra rich. He employed people? He donated some money to hospitals?

Meanwhile he was the financial engine behind dismantling democracy, disinformation, accelerating and denying climate change, aggressive efforts at local, state and federal level to carbonise the economy in every way imaginable, suppress unions, public transport, etc etc. The lads genuflecting about this guy should probably keep in mind he aggressively pursued the endangerment of humanity just to enrich himself. These guys would make a lampshade out of your skin if they thought there was a few quid in it for them.

There'll always be little boot-licks lining up around the block for these scumbags.

Realt Dearg Sec

Tony EH wrote: »

There'll always be little boot-licks lining up around the block for these scumbags.

Never ceases to amaze me.

Tony EH

I'm sure there's a psychological syndrome that explains it.

James Brown

Sonny noggs wrote: »

I’m sure George Soros doesn’t donate to causes that advocate for proper border control, and he’d be quick to withdraw funding if they started doing so. I wonder how many anti-abortion foundations Soros funds. Would you class his philanthropy as weaponised philanthropy also?

How about the well publicised story of the (black) billionaire that paid the student loans of the 2019 graduating students of Morehouse College - ‘a private, historically black men’s college’. Weaponised philanthropy?

Took 'till page 3 for whataboutery. That's not bad at all.

James Brown

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Yeah, just as I thought ‘weaponised philanthropy’ is only a problem when the ‘other side’ does it. Point proven. Cheers. No further response required.

The 'other side'. You've been brainwashed and you're helping spread it. I feel sorry for folk who bought in and peddle the right wing fox/Trump mentality.
What Koch did or didn't do is on Koch. What anyone else did is another discussion.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Took 'till page 3 for whataboutery. That's not bad at all.

Oh, bother. You all throw that term about like its some sort of criminal offense. Bottom line, though... It’s not whataboutery if the example is used to highlight HYPOCRISY.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. You all throw that term about like its some sort of criminal offense. Bottom line, though... It’s not whataboutery if the example is used to highlight HYPOCRISY.

Crap.
What Hypocrisy? You are living in the different political mental realm.
Can you tell me what the sides are and who the members are? Most decent left/right wing people want the best for society but disagree on the methods and goals. I can respect that. This whole 'snowflake' 'SJW' crap of the last number of years is disgusting. It whittles down people to blocks or sides. 'Republican In Name Only' for example. UnAmerican. Who decides these things? People with an agenda and their lackeys, willing or brainwashed.

You tell me what the hypocrisy is on this? People are commenting on Koch. It matters not if Obama kicked a Nun up the arse.

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Crap.
What Hypocrisy? You are living in the different political mental realm.
Can you tell me what the sides are and who the members are? Most decent left/right wing people want the best for society but disagree on the methods and goals. I can respect that. This whole 'snowflake' 'SJW' crap of the last number of years is disgusting. It whittles down people to blocks or sides. 'Republican In Name Only' for example. UnAmerican. Who decides these things? People with an agenda and their lackeys, willing or brainwashed.

You tell me what the hypocrisy is on this? People are commenting on Koch. It matters not if Obama kicked a Nun up the arse.

What the heck are you going on about? My comment was about your response to the post about George Soros philanthropy and if it should also be characterized as weaponised philanthropy that was thrown at David Koch.

steamsey

Here is one from '96 where the Koch bros didn't spend the necessary money to fix a gas line, and caused the death of two teenagers. Add murderers to their CVs.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/08/25/Pipeline-burns-on-after-killing-teens/6940840945600/

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

What the heck are you going on about? My comment was about your response to the post about George Soros philanthropy and if it should also be characterized as weaponised philanthropy that was thrown at David Koch.

No it wasn't. You were complaining about people pointing out 'whataboutery'.
Soros was introduced to take away from Koch. Like one cancels out the other.

Realt Dearg Sec

notobtuse wrote: »

What the heck are you going on about? My comment was about your response to the post about George Soros philanthropy and if it should also be characterized as weaponised philanthropy that was thrown at David Koch.

The person who called Koch's supposed philanthropy weaponised never defended George Soros. It was thrown out as a red herring as if it nullified the point. I don't think George Soros should be allowed amass an infinite fortune and then seek ways to shape the whole world in his whole image either. It's pure whataboutery, as if each "side" has its set of billionaires (this is a convenient fiction of the far right, that allows them to talk about "liberal elites" and in the process lump in someone who, say, likes unions, with Jeffrey Epstein or whoever. It's a more or less infinite resource for avoiding debate on the actual actions of dirtbag sociopaths like David Koch, who the far right love but don't want to actually have to defend in any specific ways). I don't like the notion of these super-billionaires sponging up the world's wealth.

That being said, there's no argument as to which bilionaire's actions have caused more damage to the Earth.

Beechwoodspark

If there’s a hell below he’s gonna experience some climate change now

And no denying it !!

notobtuse

Here’s the difference between the Right and Left in the US. The Left has wallowed in ghoulish glee over the death of David Koch. At the same time we hear liberal heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Notorious RBG) was just treated for pancreatic cancer yet again. It’s apparent her time with us is short. Her constitutional decisions consisted of disregarding what she dislikes that’s in the Bill of Rights, making up stuff that’s not in it, and makes rulings based on what she feels should be in it. She’s a terrible justice and we on the Right would love to see her step down. But we’ll express no delight when her passing eventually happens, and instead express a grudging respect for Ginsburg as a worthy opponent and as one tough cookie. That’s what being classy is all about.

Tony EH

There is no left in the US.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Here’s the difference between the Right and Left in the US. The Left has wallowed in ghoulish glee over the death of David Koch. At the same time we hear liberal heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg (Notorious RBG) was just treated for pancreatic cancer yet again. It’s apparent her time with us is short. Her constitutional decisions consisted of disregarding what she dislikes that’s in the Bill of Rights, making up stuff that’s not in it, and makes rulings based on what she feels should be in it. She’s a terrible justice and we on the Right would love to see her step down. But we’ll express no delight when her passing eventually happens, and instead express a grudging respect for Ginsburg as a worthy opponent and as one tough cookie. That’s what being classy is all about.

You've not specified who 'the left' is. Would McCain have been 'the left'? He disagreed with Trump on a number of issues.
Would business rivals of the Koch brothers be 'the left'?
The major difference in you latest bout of whataboutery is Ginsburg is a supreme court judge not a private individual using her wealth to sway the policies of politicians for personal gain.
Trump is as classy as dog **** on the sole of a shoe, I believe it was him said that of her. As for the Right or Republicans/ALT Right being classy, stop putting children on trial and in cages and stop supporting the murderous Israeli regime and we can talk about classy.

KyussB

It's not a game of football, or a gentlemanly competition where each 'side' is mutually respectable.

Some people are so wilfully destructive to the world, knowingly and deceitfully causing harm to an extent that they're better off dead - and when their acts involve such knowing/wilful malice, their death warrants celebration imo.