use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~7 users here now
David Koch, billionaire industrialist and libertarian political activist, dies at 79
submitted 11 months ago by r721 from cnbc.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (5 children)
I'll agree they had a bigger impact, but I think Koch had a more damaging impact. The splash wasn't as large, but the direction it went was far more drastic (very far right authoritarian anti-worker type of propaganda). Zuck may surpass that yet, but we'll see.
[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago* (4 children)
None of the far right is anti worker. Like seriously, go to voat.co and say "hey don't you all hate workers, amiright" and see what response you get.
Koch wasn't far right. Not in the longest shot. He was libertarian and further left than Obama and the rest of the Dems on many issues. He was ahead of them on same sex marriage (not that I support that), he was ahead of them on prison reform (by decades), he was ahead of them on marijuana legalization (they are still dragging their feet on that one). I would say he was ahead of them on immigration but the dems have been on that issue for a long time so we will call it a tie.
You may actually not understand Koch at all. You may have just put him into your mold that the media tells you to create for all republicans which doesn't even match any republicans. Like you lefties actually think these people are intentionally sinister and evil. We on the right think you are all stupid but well meaning. But you think the other side is being evil for evil's sake. If you believe that's the case you may not understand what anyone on the opposite side of the isle from you actually believes.
[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (3 children)
He actively worked to destroy unions, and hollow out the middle class, to make himself and his brother more wealthy. I know what he did.
[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (2 children)
Unions suck. They are the reason why work left the northern midwest and why chicago is poor. He intentionally attempted to hollow out the middle class? I call absolute bullshit. Show me proof.
The left is just high affluent accusations. As long as you are accusing someone you match the left ascetic and automatically get support, but no one ever goes against the mob and says bullshit. Well this one is bullshit.
Give proof. You might learn something while trying to support your claims. Till then the only thing I learned is how utterly retarded his accusers are/were. You have convinced me of nothing else.
[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago (1 child)
[–]x0x7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 11 months ago* (0 children)
You realize that one of those is not zeroed. I could make any two downward trending subject line up exactly like that. Not only is corelation not causation, but that doesn't even show good corelation.
Second, I don't care about unions. Third the federal reserve has more to do with that. Fourth real household incomes have gone up slightly. I don't care about proportionate share. That's for petty and retarded children.
You still have not shown that they have intentionally dismantled the middle class, which was your claim. Which also has not happened.
To the extent the middle class has shrunk it is because more people have left the middle class for the upper class. Poverty is down too which means many people joined it from lower brackets.
If we have 5 people all earning $5,000 a month and a decade goes by and now two of them earn $10,000 a month adjusted for inflation, the respective share of those with $5,000 goes down, not only in respect to their peers but that general bracket also has fewer people. In that case it went from 100% to 43%. Meanwhile none of them are poorer.
The sad thing is it is impossible for people to get richer without that retarded metric going down.
By your logic we should get everyone below the poverty line. Then the poor will have 100% of the income share. That will be good for the poor.
I will respect you when you show some capacity for mathematical reason. And that won't happen.