PDA

View Full Version : Why do liberals 'HATE' the Koch Brothers?



Libhater
06-10-2014, 06:38 AM
David Koch has donated $100 million as prime contributor to the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at M.I.T.

David Koch has donated $100 million to New York Presbyterian Hospital to help build a new ambulatory care center, plus $28 million to other research causes.

$66.7 million to support cancer research at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in N.Y.C.

The list of the Koch Brothers giving to charities is long with their donations reaching well over $1 billion dollars.


In 2011, Mr. Koch received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from organizations working to find a cure for prostate cancer.


Humanitarian of the Year Award? This is the type of a person a liberal would normally praise and give idol recognition.

http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org/FoundationsDHK.asp

Codename Section
06-10-2014, 06:39 AM
Because they were told to.

Codename Section
06-10-2014, 06:40 AM
They also gave to groups that support gay marriage and what women call "choice". Why do conservatives like them?

Matty
06-10-2014, 06:49 AM
They gave 25 million to the United Negro College Fund. Why do liberals demonize people like this? Because they are freaking idiots who have generally effed up the USA in six short years.

Peter1469
06-10-2014, 06:59 AM
The way Harry Reid obsesses over the Koch bros, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes postal on them. If he did try to kill them, people would look back, listen to all of Harry's speeches about them and everyone would agree that all the signs were there. Just like the recent school shootings.

Captain Obvious
06-10-2014, 07:36 AM
Same reason wingnuts hate Soros - because it's part of the wingnut handbook.

Codename Section
06-10-2014, 07:42 AM
The way Harry Reid obsesses over the Koch bros, I wouldn't be surprised if he goes postal on them. If he did try to kill them, people would look back, listen to all of Harry's speeches about them and everyone would agree that all the signs were there. Just like the recent school shootings.

You know, you're kinda right. He does sound like he's packin' voodoo dolls and an AR.

Mainecoons
06-10-2014, 07:51 AM
I think both Harry and McCain have gone senile/mental. Both are the perfect poster children for term limits.

DigitalBluster
06-10-2014, 07:52 AM
Why do liberals 'HATE' the Koch Brothers?

They're scapegoating -- but not just for the sake of it. Murican liberals recognize injustice under capitalism, but not in its structure, and so they grope blindly in the dark for the cause. They should be socialists, but they've been propagandized from the cradle to equate industrial feudalism with freedom and industrial democracy with gulags. Until they wake up from that matrix they'll remain allied with conservatives on the anti-socialist front, and they'll keep flailing away at individual rich bogeymen instead of targeting the owning class as a whole.

Codename Section
06-10-2014, 08:13 AM
They're scapegoating -- but not just for the sake of it. Murican liberals recognize injustice under capitalism, but not in its structure, and so they grope blindly in the dark for the cause. They should be socialists, but they've been propagandized from the cradle to equate industrial feudalism with freedom and industrial democracy with gulags. Until they wake up from that matrix they'll remain allied with conservatives on the anti-socialist front, and they'll keep flailing away at individual rich bogeymen instead of targeting the owning class as a whole.

That's kinda my problem with "socialists" and that is this whole "targeting" thing. I grew up in broke ass Mississippi and wanted to be rich. I didn't want everyone to be poor with me. I joined the marines, met people, we worked for years on a business plan, saved and pooled money and am on my way up.

Why do I need to pull anyone down? Why can't I just do my own thing and lift myself up? I don't care about the Kochs, the Soros, the Rothschild's outside of their political reach. Let them be wealthy. I just don't like their mixing with government.

If I wanted to stay poor I could have not bothered and just worked at Walmart of Waffle House for the rest of my life. I want to be able to travel and drink on boats and shit like that.

There has never been an instance of socialism in practice where everyone got rich. Why? Because there is only so much of this fake wealth business. If you want to tear down the whole system, nuke cities, revert to geoism, ok I'm with you, but if you want to keep this industrial based shit and try to tell me we'll all be wealthy I gotta say, probably that's not going to happen.

Mr. Nygma
06-10-2014, 08:24 AM
I don't hate the Koch brothers or anyone really. We all get what we want in life, we just don't know it. People who live for money, get it. Most of us when given the exchange rate for "money" of our time and happiness choose not to be rich.

DigitalBluster
06-10-2014, 04:38 PM
I grew up in broke ass Mississippi and wanted to be rich. I didn't want everyone to be poor with me.

Neither do socialists. This notion, that socialists want a so-called "equality of poverty," is quite revealing when we unpack it. Aside from raising the obvious question of why socialists would want such a thing (sadomasochism?), it suggests that our economy itself is poor, such that if everyone got an equal share (not that socialists call for such vulgar equality, but never mind that right now), then everyone would be poor -- an awkward position for an apologist of capitalism to take. Moreover, it implies an acceptance of poverty for some, for the sake of avoiding poverty for others. In other words, since the economy is poor (according to the notion), it follows that the only way to lift some out of poverty is to allow others to wallow in it -- at least for now, until capitalism can work its magic and lift all boats (but, alas, we never seem to reach a point where equality is deemed feasible without plunging everyone into poverty). It's a strange notion, considering that the economy is rich, not poor; and that this is because producers produce, not because owners own; and that socialists call for distribution according to contribution (at least for now, until distribution according to need), not according to headcount (in either case); and that this implies only that the owners make their living by producing rather than owning (a radical notion for them, but it shouldn't be for you).

Codename Section
06-10-2014, 04:50 PM
Neither do socialists. This notion, that socialists want a so-called "equality of poverty," is quite revealing when we unpack it. Aside from raising the obvious question of why socialists would want such a thing (sadomasochism?), it suggests that our economy itself is poor, such that if everyone got an equal share (not that socialists call for such vulgar equality, but never mind that right now), then everyone would be poor -- an awkward position for an apologist of capitalism to take. Moreover, it implies an acceptance of poverty for some, for the sake of avoiding poverty for others. In other words, since the economy is poor (according to the notion), it follows that the only way to lift some out of poverty is to allow others to wallow in it -- at least for now, until capitalism can work its magic and lift all boats (but, alas, we never seem to reach a point where equality is deemed feasible without plunging everyone into poverty). It's a strange notion, considering that the economy is rich, not poor; and that this is because producers produce, not because owners own; and that socialists call for distribution according to contribution (at least for now, until distribution according to need), not according to headcount (in either case); and that this implies only that the owners make their living by producing rather than owning (a radical notion for them, but it shouldn't be for you).

Let me explain to you why I get thermonuclear pissed off with my good friend kilgram (and now you) when I hear the producer versus owner thing.

Have you ever started a business with money you scraped together over a course of years? I'm going to guess "no" but I won't assume. I did without for years, reenlisted for the bonus in a really high "training accident" group within the military so that me and my friends could build the business we are building now.

So, basically we got shot at, heat stroke, almost blown up, lost bits of our souls to get this money that was used to get the business up and running. We all own a share and we "produce". At some point my awesome physicality will yield and some other young, just out of the USMC grunts or operators will show up and do this work. They will be the producer and I'll be the owner.

According to you and kilgram they should kick me in the fucking balls and take my share even though I put money, and years of sweat equity in my business because they are producing NOW and I'm just the old fart business owner.

No offense, but that eats ass. Not only does it eat ass but it makes me want to punch something.

Why can't socialists like you guys do what me and my friends did and start your own cooperative? I get that there are a bunch of heirheads as Sage likes to call it like Mitt Romney who got everything handed to them in life and yeh as a poor Mississippi countryboy I was a little envious that those guys get all the breaks and I had to go to wars to get mine, but that's MY flaw. I should look to myself and be happy with what I have and what I accomplished.

DigitalBluster
06-10-2014, 06:20 PM
None of your hardships justify a society where there is a class who produces, and another who owns the productive resources and is thereby able to skim off a portion of the produce (ownership which is enforced by their union, the State, incidentally).

I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but there it is. I don't fault you for aiming high. But the simple fact is that we can't have a capitalism where everyone is an employer (obviously). And we can't revert to sole proprietor artisan production while maintaining our advanced civilization.

If it's any consolation, I don't want to kick you in the balls.

Good luck with your business.