>I agree with this, but there's a lot of red herrings in that discussion. Whenever there's a dispute about some of the undeservedly rich (as in "but that was legal then", or "documents were lost, witnesses were dying, nothing to take to court"), those who have worked hard and earned their wealth honestly are brought to their defense.
>
>I am not defending crooks and corruption.

You aren't, but when Mike tried to put the interests of people ahead of corporate interests, you made it as if he was against anyone who's successful:

>>When exactly did corporate profits become more important than the interests of American citizens who don't happen to be wealthy?

>All the markets are down today. The DOW is down about 200 points. When did it become a terrible thing to be successful?

...which is another form of this feeling that anyone who's against corporate crooks will somehow hurt the honest but successful. And in today's world, many of the overly successful corporations, banks et al have struck it rich by tapping into bailout money, no-bid contracts and other niceties - out of our collective pockets, and pockets of the next generation. By extension, you sound like you're defending them too.