Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, sidis said:

there are cringey posts regularly made on this site daily but this one deserves some special recognition as one of the more texags-y posts not invoking fascist shit i have seen.

god damn dude.

sorry for being vulnerable. I thought we were in a safe place of despising billionaires, sheesh. tough room.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

sorry for being vulnerable. I thought we were in a safe place of despising billionaires, sheesh. tough room.

dude. it was an incredibly lame post. and it completely decimated any horseshit facade/lie you were still trying to maintain about not being animaltobacco.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, sidis said:

dude. it was an incredibly lame post. and it completely decimated any horseshit facade/lie you were still trying to maintain about not being animaltobacco.

I;ve been posting long before that clownshoe was obliterated and you are a complete idiot. Nothing I said was a lie or facade but I guess it was cringy and goofy oh well

Posted

That the current government was bought by Musk, Thiel,  Gebbia, et al  should be  the Dems constant refrain, and this video clip ought be burned, through constant repetition , into the rube’s brains:


Make this moment define Alito to the masses. Repeat. Then repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Every Representative, every Senator, no matter the subject, show that fucking video.

Buy airtime to show the video. Make Alito’s denial so inescapable, it infuriates those fuckers, because it is the essence of the problem.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
On 3/26/2025 at 3:59 PM, Vegas64 said:

I had a 1x1 phone conversation with a billionaire a few years ago. I approached it super casual and non-chalant and spoke to him as a peer and equal-- even I was surprised by how cavalier I was. 

But it was important to me that I do so for some reason. Just because this guy had a billion dollars didn't mean I had to worship him or revere him. I felt there was a personal battle there I had to fight or something.

 

 

I’ve done deals with several of them. They are slippery and evasive mother fuckers. Everything is a leverage, ego, resource or asset grab and even when they are being charitable (in business dealings) they are still slippery, evasive, ego driven and looking to control resources and assets. 

there’s nothing to worship or revere, they are maniacal assholes. And the ones that openly aspire to be billionaires are worse.

I’ve worked with more $20-50-100+ millionaires than I can count. At the lower end of that they are different but not the same. Often out of touch - beyond financial security - they have lost track of much of what worries normal people but they are not a virus like billionaires.

there is not one redeeming quality to the billionaires I’ve met. They are loathsome humans. If I had that money I would give it away, now. There is no reason to need more money than you can spend. Once you move into buying influence like musk can do it’s more money than you should legally be allowed to have. 

 

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
On 3/26/2025 at 1:10 AM, UpperWestside said:

Can we see the entire list of them posted here? I know I can google this, but a link or page listing them all might be helpful.

From Forbes today:

Quote

Another year, another set of records for the world's billionaire class.

I’m excited to announce the launch of our 2025 World’s Billionaires List.

Forbes has been scanning the globe for billionaires since 1987. We found 140 of them that first year. It took two decades for their numbers to swell beyond 1,000. Then there were 2,000 in 2017. Now, eight years later, another milestone: 3,028 entrepreneurs, investors and heirs make up this year’s ranking, 247 more than a year ago. Not only are there more of them, but they’re richer than ever, worth $16.1 trillion in total—up nearly $2 trillion over 2024.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2025/04/01/forbes-worlds-billionaires-list-2025-the-top-200/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 3/29/2025 at 10:06 AM, troph said:

I’ve done deals with several of them. They are slippery and evasive mother fuckers. Everything is a leverage, ego, resource or asset grab and even when they are being charitable (in business dealings) they are still slippery, evasive, ego driven and looking to control resources and assets. 

there’s nothing to worship or revere, they are maniacal assholes. And the ones that openly aspire to be billionaires are worse.

I’ve worked with more $20-50-100+ millionaires than I can count. At the lower end of that they are different but not the same. Often out of touch - beyond financial security - they have lost track of much of what worries normal people but they are not a virus like billionaires.

there is not one redeeming quality to the billionaires I’ve met. They are loathsome humans. If I had that money I would give it away, now. There is no reason to need more money than you can spend. Once you move into buying influence like musk can do it’s more money than you should legally be allowed to have. 

 

For some odd coincidence, i have the cell phone/office number of two billionaires in my business contacts.  One of them I haven't met more than once in person and can't base a fair opinion on.  The other is notorious for being very friendly, known for his philanthropy and has built a very successful business (no shit).  He seems quite the opposite of a loathsome human.

My great-uncle reached billionaire status shortly before he died, somewhere in his mid 90's I think.  He had more redeeming qualities than one could keep track of.  He was known and friends with world leaders.  His philanthropy reached levels that I didn't even hear about.  His surviving son and daughter did not receive more than a pittance of an inheritance, as he donated almost all of his wealth to churches, Universities (both academic and athletic scholarships in the dozens) as well as writing over his vast art collection to galleries and as property of the State that he resided. Even in my group of friends, they all would say that he was one of the most humble and entertaining people that they'd ever met.  And upon his death, I simply inherited a shotgun and a small, token amount of Indian turquoise jewelry that I had an appreciation for their craftsmanship.

Not ALL billionaires are fucking treacherous scum as you say.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

girl-sure-jan.gif

I rattle off TWO that aren't, and that's the best comeback you've got?  Fucking weak.

5 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'll pour one for the ones that aren't fucking treacherous scum when we guillotine them all

 

Boo fucking hoo, cuck.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, turtlepond said:

I rattle off TWO that aren't, and that's the best comeback you've got?  Fucking weak.

Boo fucking hoo, cuck.

You didn't rattle off two billionaires, you talked about two fictional characters.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, turtlepond said:

I rattle off TWO that aren't, and that's the best comeback you've got?  Fucking weak.

Boo fucking hoo, cuck.

Oh, yeah? Well, I know a trillionaire and he’s a super cool guy!

Posted

I suspect that more "modern" billionaires, from this era of "disruptors" and short-term profits, may be more disgusting humans than some of their predecessors.  But they probably have at some point in their acquisition of wealth exhibited some sociopathy.

Take Bill Gates.  He's been pretty quiet and highly philanthropic for the last 20 or so years.  

But hark back to the M$ antitrust trial and a lot of cocksucker behavior and entitlement revealed then.  Even if they aren't total greenheads, they seem to have some sort of messianic complex (you should thank me for Windoze and Internet Explorer, not sue me).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, turtlepond said:

For some odd coincidence, i have the cell phone/office number of two billionaires in my business contacts.  One of them I haven't met more than once in person and can't base a fair opinion on.  The other is notorious for being very friendly, known for his philanthropy and has built a very successful business (no shit).  He seems quite the opposite of a loathsome human.

My great-uncle reached billionaire status shortly before he died, somewhere in his mid 90's I think.  He had more redeeming qualities than one could keep track of.  He was known and friends with world leaders.  His philanthropy reached levels that I didn't even hear about.  His surviving son and daughter did not receive more than a pittance of an inheritance, as he donated almost all of his wealth to churches, Universities (both academic and athletic scholarships in the dozens) as well as writing over his vast art collection to galleries and as property of the State that he resided. Even in my group of friends, they all would say that he was one of the most humble and entertaining people that they'd ever met.  And upon his death, I simply inherited a shotgun and a small, token amount of Indian turquoise jewelry that I had an appreciation for their craftsmanship.

Not ALL billionaires are fucking treacherous scum as you say.

the ones I spoke of have a list of philanthropic activities that would make you blush as well. and the ones you speak of may be fantastic humans, but what I can say is that we all have a propensity to see character in place of what money can do.  It's easy to be charitable with money when you have more than you could ever spend. It's easy to be charitable with your time when you have control over every hour of your day.  It's not to say these two aren't spectacular people, but it is to say it's nearly incomprehensible how much money they have and how much freedom and flexibility they have to do those things that for us seem like above and beyond.  again, I'm sure they are great and the guys I'm referring to have their deserving accolades too.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

A whole lot of the philanthropic activity billionaires do is illusory shit that's more tax dodge than charity. And there's serious issues with the real philanthropy some of them do:

Quote

Tousands of news stories have profiled Bill Gates’s generosity over the last two decades. Essentially every day, headlines remind us of his private foundation’s largesse: a million dollars here, a billion dollars there. These are mind-bending sums for most of us—but they have also effectively short-circuited our brains. The one-sided storytelling about Gates’s selfless philanthropy has created a dangerous mythology that misunderstands who Bill Gates really is and what he is actually doing.

After two decades of philanthropic giving, Bill Gates continues to be one of richest people on the planet. He boasts a private fortune of $117 billion (and that’s after his costly divorce from Melinda, whose bank account today exceeds $10 billion). He also oversees the Gates Foundation’s $67 billion endowment. The combined $184 billion he controls surpasses the gross domestic product of virtually every poor nation in which the Gates Foundation works today.

A sober analysis of Gates shows he is just as worthy of the titles of hoarder and miser as he is philanthropist and mensch. Relative to his vast wealth, Gates is giving away a tiny amount of money—that he doesn’t need and that he could never possibly spend on himself. So the question is: Instead of celebrating the million-dollar gifts his foundation donates, why aren’t we interrogating the $184 billion that Gates isn’t giving away? Why aren’t we asking: How is it that the world’s most generous philanthropist is becoming richer and richer, year over year?

It’s the kind of contradiction that defines Gates, one of the most misunderstood people in the world. Much of what we know about Gates, or think we know, comes from Gates himself—from the research his foundation funds, the think tanks it sponsors, the journalism it underwrites, and the megaphone Gates has cranked up to 11. Arguably the most effective aspect of Gates’s philanthropic career has been its PR. And, arguably, the single biggest beneficiary of the Gates Foundation has been Bill Gates, himself.

The Gates Foundation ferociously claims that its “bottom line is the lives saved,” which Bill Gates also describes as his North Star. Asked by CNN in 2021 whether he would be joining fellow billionaires—Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, and Elon Musk—in their missile-measuring race into outer space, Gates made a big show of staying above the fray: “Until we can get rid of malaria and tuberculosis, and all these diseases that are so terrible in poor countries, that’s going to be my total focus.… I do hope that people who are rich will find ways to give their wealth back to society with high impact. Clearly, they’ve got skills. They can’t, or shouldn’t, want to consume it all themselves.” CNN, which receives millions of dollars in charitable donations from the Gates Foundation, did not challenge Gates’s claimed moral authority or good-billionaire routine. If it were engaged in real journalism, it would, at the very least, have offered context.

It seems important to inform audiences, for example, about the very significant time and energy that Gates spends on self-enrichment and wealth accumulation. Through his climate-focused investment fund, Breakthrough Energy, Gates has invested money in a rocket company named Stoke. Elsewhere, he has a majority stake in the luxury hotel Four Seasons, and is reportedly the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. And, recently, Gates made a casual $500 million bet against Tesla, publicly acknowledging that it had only one purpose: to make money.

For a guy who publicly claims that his “total focus” is helping the global poor, Gates also appears to devote considerable time to sitting for self-aggrandizing interviews—often with news outlets that his private foundation funds. Talking to BBC, the recipient of millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation, he once again took softball questions about whether he had ambitions to go into space, using the opportunity to trumpet his philanthropic work on Earth. A child’s life can be saved for only $1,000, Gates noted, echoing similar claims he has made for years. It seems more than fair, at a point, to aim Gates’s data analysis at his own wealth. By Gates’s own figures, his $184 billion wealth could save 184 million lives—if he gave that money away.

This calculation, like much of Gates’s “numbers guy” routine, is pure pablum. But however you cut the numbers, Gates’s vast wealth could help the world in far-reaching ways, for example if it were redistributed as cash gifts to the poor. That can’t happen through the Gates Foundation’s father-knows-best, look-at-me brand of bureaucratic philanthropy. Gates isn’t interested in empowering the poor; he’s interested in imposing his solutions. Following the money from the Gates Foundation confirms this. Nearly 90 percent of the foundation’s charitable dollars go to organizations located in wealthy nations, not the poor countries he claims to serve. Never mind that the Gates Foundation’s website is inundated with the images of smiling poor people of color; in practice, the Gates model is funding white-collared bodies in the Global North to fix those wearing dashikis, burqas, saris, and kangas in the Global South.

A growing group of Gates’s intended beneficiaries today criticize him as doing more harm than good, and some have explicitly asked him to stop helping. “Bill Gates Should Stop Telling Africans What Kind of Agriculture Africans Need,” noted the headline of an op-ed in Scientific American, authored by Million Belay and Bridget Mugambe from the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. From farmer organizations in sub-Saharan Africa to public health experts around the globe to public school teachers in the United States, critics cite the high opportunity costs of Gates’s charitable crusades and the vast collateral damage they leave behind.

No one elected or appointed Gates to lead the world—on any topic. Gates simply asserted his vast wealth to take power. He has put his hands on the levers of the world, trying to remake how we feed, medicate, and educate poor people according to his own narrow neoliberal ideology. The Microsoft founder even faces long-standing allegations of destructive monopoly power in his philanthropic ventures, as he has planted his flag and sought to take over fields like malaria research and health metrics.

There are few words that better describe this model of power—where the richest guy gets the loudest voice—than “oligarchy.” And no one has done more to normalize and institutionalize oligarchy than Gates. By masking his money-in-politics efforts under the banner of charity—instead of, say, lobbying or campaign contributions—Gates commands tax benefits, endless accolades, and public applause. Philanthropy has been very, very good to our “good billionaire.”

This lesson has not been lost on Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and hundreds of other billionaires who have pledged to follow in Gates’s footsteps, turning their vast private wealth into expansive political power through philanthropy, whether it is remaking climate policy, reshaping American public schools, or influencing the debate over how we regulate AI. That makes it all the more important that the rest of us also master this lesson. We have allowed Gates, Bezos, and Zuckerberg to become obscenely wealthy and now we are allowing these men to turn their wealth into tax-privileged political power through philanthropy. These are choices we can also un-make. But to do so, we must learn to see past the PR halo.

When the super-rich engage in charity, it has a way of not just scrambling our cognition, but also our humanity. The dollars on the table tempt us into a dangerous ends-justifies-the-means logic in which we focus on the enormous public goods that can be created through private wealth and ignore the known harms caused in its creation, or the antidemocratic power it engenders, or the alternatives at hand—most simply, redistributing billionaire wealth through taxation instead of philanthropy.

The word “philanthropy,” from the Greek, means lover of humanity. A charitable gift is meant to be an act of love, not an exercise of power. Giving away money is not supposed to magnify the asymmetries in power that govern society but to collapse them. And this is why, in many respects, Gates might be better described as a misanthrope—if he does not hate his fellow human, then he certainly views himself as superior. Gates’s disregard for the wishes, needs, rights, dignity, intelligence, and talent of the poor people that he claims to be serving speaks to the fundamentally colonial lens through which he executes his charitable empire. It highlights the existential limits of what he can accomplish, and it explains why the Gates Foundation has achieved so little.

It’s not that Gates isn’t well intentioned, or that his charitable interventions have never helped anyone. Clearly, the tens of billions of dollars the Gates Foundation has given away have helped people at times and, yes, saved lives. But these wins should be viewed, at best, as a thin silver lining in a very dark cloud. At some point, we should understand that humanitarianism aimed at real human progress—equality, justice, freedom—requires us to challenge unaccountable power and illegitimate leaders, not worship them. And that means Bill Gates is a problem, not a solution.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
51 minutes ago, troph said:

again, I'm sure they are great and the guys I'm referring to have their deserving accolades too.

and yet in the context of growing poverty and wealth disparity, Bernie's assertion rings true: every billionaire is a policy failure. until society's ills are managed, these people are leeches, plain and simple

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, turtlepond said:

Quality zinger....

This from the guy who just unironically in 2025 called someone else a cuck. Fuck off, you dimwitted rube. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

A whole lot of the philanthropic activity billionaires do is illusory shit that's more tax dodge than charity. And there's serious issues with the real philanthropy some of them do:

 

This was my point. I don’t get accolades for leaving $0.15 in the need a penny, take a penny jar at the gas station, they do yet their millions are about same cost to them as the quarter I left behind. Illusory and to control the PR about them is correct.

Edited by troph
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Much to the point of the policy failure mentioned above, even if one billionaire showed true altruism, an individual should not be capable of significantly affecting public policies and directing large amounts of money to groups, whether that includes taking care of the poor, purifying a village's drinking water, installing electrical generation, etc. When an individual can influence at such a scale it becomes rife for fuckery. See: the present

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also worth noting, again, that guys like Gates donate sums beyond the comprehension of most of us. 

And again, scaled down....it's on par with you or me tossing pocket change to someone.

These people are a cancer.

Posted (edited)
On 3/27/2025 at 2:46 PM, Willfully Horn said:

That the current government was bought by Musk, Thiel,  Gebbia, et al  should be  the Dems constant refrain, and this video clip ought be burned, through constant repetition , into the rube’s brains:


Make this moment define Alito to the masses. Repeat. Then repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Every Representative, every Senator, no matter the subject, show that fucking video.

Buy airtime to show the video. Make Alito’s denial so inescapable, it infuriates those fuckers, because it is the essence of the problem.

 

Everyone knows the American century was made possible by expanding the role of the federal government that then led to the US becoming the dominant economic power in the world as well as the advancement of rights for minorities, women, and working people.

Our political philosophy purposes, what if we didn’t?

spacer.png

/federalistsociety

Edited by Dnaguy
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...