Slashdot Mirror
George Soros Speaks Politics
horos2c writes "Hey all, the philanthropic billionaire George Soros has tossed his two cents worth in about the election and about Bush's policies overall. Even from an apolitical point of view its an interesting read, that's for sure. He both speaks clearly and has a hell of a lot to say."
Of late it has concerned me that many of my friends in the Unted States feel that there is no way to escape the current political regime. They see the boys dying every day in Iraq, the rapid and ongoing decline in the world opinion of their country, and watch polls that seem to show that four more years of Bush are coming.
Politicians these days will never, ever make strong stands on anything that the pollsters suggest might cost votes. Only greed and a thirst for power matter to most of them.
It is good that there are people like Soros who will stand up and speak their minds.
Three Squirrels
I've selected "politics" from my Slashdot preferences "Exclude topics" section, but the Politics section still keep showing up.
I'm about to just stop coming to slashdot since I'm having this CRAMMED DOWN MY THROAT.
hmmm, maybe dictionary.com would work better....
Hey now, I'm as big a pinko as the next guy, but trying to pass Soros off as some non-political concerned-citizen is just silly. He bankrolls Air America Radio, for chrissakes!
OK, I'm gonna burn a little more karma....
Didn't taco say the politics section was going to have a balance of opinion and wouldn't be slanted either way? Well, it has been been pretty much pro-kerry, pro-liberal, pro-democratic non-geek news foisted on slashdotters of all persuasions. How about some conservative links, seriously.
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
When CmdrTaco said that there would be a balance, he meant that they'd show both viewpoints: Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.
Geez. Learn to read.
As was (not actually) said in "The Blues Brothers" -- "We've got both kinds of politics here: Trotskyism AND Leninism!".
I think the editor was apolitical, not Soros.
You want right wing? You got it here.
It's George Soros. The unrelenting capitalist. He's advocating his plan for world stability so he and others can capitalize even more. As if Soros is liberal. Liberal market, if that's what you mean.
Just because it's anti-Bush or pro-Kerry doesn't mean it's liberal. Just as if it was pro-Bush or anti-Kerry doesn't mean it's right-wing.
At least this article could have taken the time to point out this man is rabidly anti-Bush, and is one of the biggest bankroller of opposition groups like MoveOn.
If you want more information on this man,
Here's one excellent background piece.
Here's an article where he compared Bush to Hitler.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
For cryin' out loud, why don't you put up some of Rupert Murdoch's quotes!?!
Suddenly, it all becomes clear... Soros obviously offered Slashdot some kickbacks or bought 1000 subscriptions...
Soros, if you use the diamond method, is probably a libertarian which doesn't mesh well with the the left or right model.
That is, Soros is for economic AND self determination, which is smaller government with less taxes and regulations. I always thought the republicans were for that too, but they're too influenced by the "christian right" these days...
The poster did not say that Soros was a non-political person. He/she said that his words and thoughts were interesting from an apolitical point of view--meaning that we all should be interested in the questions and issues he raises, whatever our political viewpoint, and that even people who are completely apolitical should be interested in the issues.
I think that's true. Regardless of whether one cares at all about politics, one probably cares about how the rest of the world perceives us, whether we've been lied to or manipulated, whether we are more or less safe now than right after 9/11, and so forth. Completely apolitical people are not necessarily totally apathetic about everything, and the poster's words indicate that Soros's thoughts will be of interest to many of those who are apolitical but not totally devoid of all concern about anything.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
In a statement released in response, the RNC said, "See, with wealthy members like that, the Democrats are clearly out of touch with the average person." then, changing the subject, added, "John Kerry says he would still vote for the Iraq War, knowing what he knows today. You shouldn't vote for him, he supports the President's War in Iraq. Bush, on the other hand, um... crap."
Unknown host pong.
"Either way", "pro-kerry", "pro-bush" ...
... we can fight back, right here. And considering how few people "read the fucking article", it's possible your comments matter more than the story itself.
Presenting two differing points of view does not make something unbiased; even a billion points of view cannot provide objective reporting. Some of us don't favor "either of the candidates", some of us don't think this is a simple "liberal vs. conservative" spectrum of opinion. It won't matter if they throw in some "conservative"-related stuff, it's still biased editing -- assuming, that is, that their input pool isn't just as biased as their output pool seems to be. (You could correct that by submitting your own, non-lefty, stories.)
But more importantly, some of us realize that the benefit of slashdot isn't that the editors are unbiased, it's that the comments are only moderated, not censored. (And I just finished using up my mod points.) You and I are free to speak, to present alternate points of view
But do you really want the editors to throw you a bone by sending your way something you already agree with? Will it make your day better? Do you feel so oppressed and alone that the sympathy of slashdot editors would be sufficient to bring an end to your gloomy mood? You're not even in the minority, according to current presidential polls! ("Lefties" of course are welcome to be offended that slashdot editors would feel they need the extra boost of having mostly/nothing-but stories "in their favor".)
How about some opinion from people who think that individual's should be allowed to run their own lives, not States? Unlike the fascists on the Right and the socialists on the Left. How about some opinion from people who actually are Liberals in the traditional (classical, correct) usage of the word (ala Liberalism ).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Typical ignorance. Let me help you weed out your misconceptions.
The one thing you have right is that Republicans want special priviledges for businesses. This is Fascism. However, it is not the free market, and it is not capitalism. "State Capitalism" (or fascism) is the German implementation of socialism. It is not capitalism or the free market, or laissez faire, or libertarianism. George Soros seems more fascist (he lost his shirt to the tune of $2 billion in loans to the USSR, then pleaded to have governments loot their taxpayers to pick up the tab for his miscalculation).
George Soros is like a snake -- turning on the free market that's allowed him to become rich. Of course, it's self-interest (as noted above).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Soros is not a libertarian. He's a fascist. For State Corporatism. He wants States to loot their taxpayers to pay for the risks he takes. See Inside Soros. Please, let's not conflate "free-market rhetoric" with free-market action. Free market action is simply this: allowing any non-coercive interaction to occur. Gee, Soros wants taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $2-billion? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Sounds like a thief.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Think! It ain't illegal yet.
--George Clinton
Think! It ain't illegal yet!
George Clinton
Well, this article submission was too much (or not enough) pro-whomever for their taste:
In the weeks leading up to the Presidential elections, many Slashdot users as well as some third party candidates (Badnarik) have advocated the use of better voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting, Approval Voting and Condorcet Voting. There is a new web site which has just started a worldwide campaign to promote such alternatives, and it has just come up with an unexpected endorsement for the US 2004 election. What's much more interesting is a new service which is, as far as I am aware, unique on the web: a MOD of the popular software phpBB allows users not only to post messages like on any other Bulletin Board, but also to create their own polls, with their own choice of candidates, using a variety of voting methods. Users can thus create their own polls, cast their ballots and talk about the results all in the same forum.
American voters should use this unique opportunity to cast the alternative ballot that they will not be able to cast in November, and maybe also create new polls corresponding to other local elections in their states. It would be very interesting to see what the result would be if voters were given the opportunity to voice their true preferences.
http://www.masquilier.org/republic/election/ Condorcet, Plurality voting and alternative voting enabled bulletin board.
If you think the editor was apolitical, you're out of your freakin' mind.
I write in my journal
Um. Dude? We have an American political spectrum, okay? It's a subset of the whole spectrum. American liberals are not anti-capitalists. Anti-capitalists lie outside the American mainstream. So comments like yours are essentially meaningless.
I write in my journal
If you'd even read the first page of the linked article, you'd see that he does support the operations in afghanistan.
The invasion of Afghanistan was justifed: that was where bin Laden lived and Al Quadea had it's traning camps.
I don't really know how he could be more explicet then that.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see that I said he is wrong to support the invasion of Afghanistan. I was criticizing Soros precisely because he "does support the operations in afghanistan". Perhaps you should spend more time reading what others write before you insult them.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Kerry for the war vs. Kerry against the war.
Kerry wanting to spend more money on the war vs. Kerry wanting to spend less money on the war.
Kerry for financing the troops vs. Kerry against financing the troops.
Kerry for unilateralism vs. Kerry against unilateralism.
Kerry believing there were WMD vs. Kerry believing there weren't any WMD.
And then for everybody that's just plain confused, Kerry speaks to them too:
I really can't believe Kerry isn't doing better than he is. I mean whatever ideals or beliefs you have, he's taken your side. He's the only guy out there that will bravely take every position on every issue and defend all of them. With Bush, he just takes one position on each issue and sticks with it, it's crazy.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
His words are simple and well spoken. His point of view isn't extreme. It's a very common point of view these days. He has done some very impressive things around the world in the name of freedom. There is definitely a need to discredit someone this valuable to our society if you don't like what they have to say. Look at how Clarke went from hard right wing conservative to branded bleeding heart liberal in a matter of weeks. You have to respect him for putting his money where his mouth is. It's not like he stands to make a fortune. He's just doing what he thinks is right, and he's determined to win because he thinks it's that important. I am a Conservative, but I respect that a great deal.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Since when could a Liberal not make money?
In our President's cabinet than at any other time in history. Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone. As a taxpayer I'm going to have to bail out a 200 billion dollar quagmire. It sorta makes 2 billion look like chickenfeed. In the end the guy has done a lot of good around the world, and truly seems to believe in freedom. I'm having problems slighting the guy because he tried to do charity work in Russia, and ended up going it alone. I don't see any evidence of an egotrip, or any turning against capitalism. That sounds more like Roveian propaganda than anything based in reality.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
If you support any of the following positions, then your article will be modded down as "flamebait" or "troll".
1. deporting illegal aliens
2. banning H-1B workers from India, China, and Korea
3. praising Bill O'Reilly
There is a remedy. Take your views to the radio. Call radio talk shows and write letters to the editor of magazines. I have expressed all my views in those forums.
I succeeded in putting several Taiwanese politicians on the spot. Unlike Slashdot, the Chinese and the Indians cannot shut you up in those other forums.
If you hate what is happening to our nation, the USA, then write the following on the November ballot.
president: Bill O'Reilly
vice-president: Tammy Bruce
The purpose of this political section seems to be one thing and one thing only: Advance the DNC's message and talking points and to expose all the evil Republicans for the rich, lying, fascist pigs that they are.
I mean, describing George Soros website as being interesting from an apolitical point of view? Come on! This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected. He's one of the top contributors to the Bush-bashing 527 groups.
Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Ah so someone makes fun of Kerry and it's flamebait? I suppose if it was making fun of Bush it would be +5 Insightful?
you don't see anything wrong with trying to steal $2 billion dollars from taxpayers? If GW Bush asked the taxpayers to bail him out on a $2-billion dollar flop investment he made, there'd be a feeding frenzy (and rightfully so). This guy advocates massive interventions in the free market. I suggest you read further into the article I linked to for more discussion on that. The fact that he has done good within the framework of capitalism -- both as an entrepreneur and a philanthropist -- does not give him a free pass to engage in criminal behaviour (forcing any coercive interaction is criminal, by natural law).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The only place that the grandparent post is anything BUT flamebait is FOX News. Oversimplification of Kerry's voting record is pathetic, at best.
I thought this was supposed to be a website that attracted geeks/nerds. If you are only able to digest the neatly spun summary from K.R. and company, and willing to ignore the details of his (anyone's) voting record, then you are a poor excuse for a nerd. If you are unable to fathom a person's views evolving over their career, willing to believe a bill with 50+ riders on it can be summed up in four words, unable to seperate facts from spin, then go ahead and call the grandparent post humor.
Perhaps they haven't gotten a conservative submission that meets the ahem... "quality" threshold for posting on /.
You wouldn't want to see "conservative" viewpoints unfairly subsidized by the editorial staff, would you?
All ribbing aside...
If you're going to complain about perported slant of this section, could you at least provide some examples of what you think are conservative stories that should be posted so we aren't having to judge your assertion on some nebulous accusation of "too liberal".
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Actually, Free Markets are a Liberal idea, Protectionism and Isolationalism are Conservative ideas.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Maybe instead of complaining about Slashdot bias, you could try and respond to the posted article?
So I guess all those countries that subsidize Airbus (europe) are fasist huh?
That specific policy is fascist. Nothing prevents a country from implementing both fascist and communist policies, both of which are different implementations of socialism. Of course, Socialism in the original definition is simply impossible (to understand this, you have to understand what Marx meant by Socialism -- which was both a means, the socialization of all factors of production, and an ends, enormous prosperity; and to understand that in-so-far as an industry is socialized, economic calculation is impossible, thus prosperity is impossible).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Being a Rosa Parks takes a lot of luck (if you can call it that), and you can't pick your timing.
I forget what 8 was for.
Soros is a follower and student of Karl Popper. I believe that Soros was most influenced by Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper is a really interesting person, who most /.ers would find a lot of ideas in common. You may find that some of the ideas you hold about rationality and science originated with Popper. I think that Karl Popper managed to breath new life into Liberalism when many were questioning how much further it could take us.
Karl Popper was also one of the first to advocate Free Markets as a feature of the Open Society, although I think that his idea of Free Markets more resemble what the current debate is calling Fair Trade rather than what is called Free Trade. The Clintons and many of the people that served in Bill's Administration were at least influenced by Karl Popper, which is why I think the Democrats during the 90's were so confusing to many in the far-left.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
There's a difference between fair and balanced. Fair is when you tell the unbiased truth. Balanced is when you give the UFO conspiracy theorist and the exobiologist equal standing.
Fox News is balanced. George Soros is fair.
Wow, you are trying to spin the notion that Liberals invented free markets along with the Internet?
I wonder, how Liberals can be for a free/open market when:
1). They attempt to force Socialized healthcare on people who don't want it. Shouldn't Liberals trust that in time the open market to find a solution?
2). They Demand/Depend on Inefficient Government Programs that redistribute individual and corporate wealth. Shouldn't it be up to the people or investers who create wealth to determine how it is spent and invested?
3). Liberal candidates preach about the faith they have in our Failing State Run Public Schools and tell us about the Evils of Vouchers while they send their children to private schools. If given the choice between paying more taxes for "the children" or being taxed less, therefore being able to work less and thus commit more time to writing open source educational programs, I personally think the later would do more to help "the children".
If you support open source, then to avoid contradiction of thought, you should also support open markets for the very same reasons. In time open markets and open source produce the best results for the largest amount of people and provide the largest selection of options and choice. Your belief should be that the best goods and services will grow from such an enviornment.
Government restricts open markets and ideas by the creation of rules and regulations that rarely accomplish their intended goal. Government promises everything and delivers very little, sorta like a Washington based software company.
I am amazed that with the volume of people on Slashdot who claim to hate M$, these same people favor the Democratic party, which for all intensive purposes is the M$ of politics. Democrats like M$ promise us everything, with no intention or ability to deliver. Who do you trust more to solve the issue of SPAM, Democratic Politicians, M$ or the open source community? Democrats and M$ win whenever they can get more people to depend on them. Democrats spin negatives about their opponents to boost approval, just like M$ spins "problems with Linux" to boost sales. M$ contributes money to SCO to do their dirty work, the Kerry campaign uses moveon.org for the exact same kind of work.
I am not saying you have to vote for Bush this election. Republicans are not the only alternative, but I do personally believe they are significantly better than Democrats.
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you. Kerry is not the Left's candidate, he is Kennedy and Daschle's boy.
If you do go in and vote for Kerry, you're just adding to the infinite loop where Democrats run puppet candidates instead of men/women of true character.
Respect the Constitution
President Bush explicity referenced rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq as justification for his missile defense system. He's still pushing for it. Why invade Iraq if he can in fact get a working missile defense system that would protect us against Iraq and North Korea?
The fact that he invaded Iraq implies that he lacks confidence in his own missile defense system.
I'm a "fellow conservative and Republican" and paid-in-full member of the California Republican League. And I wouldn't vote for Bush if you paid me to.
Why? Because he isn't a Republican. His policies both inside and outside the U.S. are the most damaging for the country in my lifetime (which predates JFK).
It an't a 'left' or 'right' thing. Its a don't increase federal spending to the highest levels and generate the most massive debt in history thing: and still try to pass yourself off as a Republican.
Its a don't be a grotesque crony thing: which is ugly no matter who is trying to sell that slime.
Its a don't wallpaper over your utter lack of diplomacy and persuasion skills with a moronic lets-go-alone policy. To lead you must convince others to follow. Instead, he has created the most divided nation since Vietnam and stupidly and arrogantly squandered goodwill worldwide in exchange for cooperation via threats.
None of this is intelligent, none of it is shrewed -- and worst of all, it is expensive and largly ineffective.
I'm a Republican, and Bush is an embarassment to my Republican family. He's like the Ted Kennedy of Republicans, the only one left after the good, smart ones were killed.
The social right-wingers and evangelical freaks need to find their own party so that the Republican party can get back to fiscal restraint and small government.
Suck it up.
You must be young. Let me give you a free clue, all these people you're addressing, don't believe anything they say, they just say whatever supports their cause.
If I told you that was last year, would you know what I meant?
Please don't bring up that Gore Internet thing on /. this crowd knows better. We all read the article when Dr. Cerf backed up Gore's statement. I'm not spinning, I'm citing historical fact. John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Popper were all Liberals.
/. than you have made against it. Unless you can come up with an argument that can overcome this, I doubt you'll get very far with me.
As for your assertions:
1) Only the far-left supports "Socialized healthcare". Big L Liberals may support varying degrees of socialized health insurance, but not socialized healthcare.
2) Big L Liberals have always noted the danger of concentration of wealth and the relationship of wealth and power to democracy and the Open Society.
3) Liberal candidates believe that Vouchers are not the cure to our failing public schools. They don't simply oppose them on principle, they oppose them because the programs are consistently underfunded and thus do not address the need of society to educate the next generation.
I support Open Source and Open Markets, but I also understand that in order for them to survive, the rights of minorities must be protected. The answer is not in taking away the safety net of the vulnerable. Government is no more inherently evil than any other human organization, for you to characterize it this way undermines your argument. While I believe in meritocracies and free markets, I also understand that they lack long term vision and can easily result in chaotic environments that do more harm than the good they provide. They also create defacto fascism, which like a monoculture of MS, creates vulnerable societies and cultures. Belief doesn't really enter into it. This is not a question of faith, but of reasoned analysis. Blind faith in free or open markets is as assinine as Marxism.
Please explain your comparison of MS' preditorial practices and the Democratic Party. I haven't heard this one yet. Your accusation that the Democrats have no intention or ability to deliver is baseless on it's face. The facts and reasoning of the people you are attacking says otherwise. Why should I take your vague accusations over their specific plans?
The idea that anyting other than removing Bush from office this November is in my best interest is laughable. I'm a progressive, not an idealist. It's an American tradition of pragmatic moderatism that I am acting in and one based on rational analysis of the facts. For all of the Democratic Party's faults, you have yet to present any reasonable solutions. Perhaps you should read an earlier post I made today as to why I like groups like MoveOn.org and other 527's, which are not allowed to coordinate with the Kerry campaign or the Democratic Party. I think I've made a far more compelling argument to vote for Kerry rather than a third party candidate on
Please explain to me what I have to gain from 4 more years of Bush, I can think of plenty that I have to lose.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Um, no. The outcry has been over the fact that George Soros is a well-documented dumbass with nothing constructive to add to the discussion, but he's been pimped here like the greatest political philosopher of our times.
Would you care to back up your claim that he is a "well-documented dumbass"? I know little of Soros other than that he is an important supporter of drug legalization, but other than that -- nothing. What he wrote seemed to be reasonably straightforward. His critique -- that we should not have gone to Iraq and once there, we severely mismanaged the PR side of occupation -- seems pretty spot on. I guess you could argue with his conclusion (that Bush must go), maybe say "Sure, Bush screwed up on Iraq, but you expect everyone to make mistakes", but the points he brings up seem to be pretty straightforward.
May we never see th
Godwin's Law is often invoked by people who try to use it to kill arguments, saying "you referenced Hitler".
0x0d0a's Law:
Those who invoke Godwin's Law usually lack a counterargument.
May we never see th
Fox News isn't *that* balanced, judging from their current headlines:
* Kidnappers Issue Statement Praising France (keep that French hate alive)
* Bush: 'I Proudly Served'
President tells O'Reilly he got no special treatment in Nat'l Guard
* The Risk of Surrogates
Some wonder if Kerry backers like Gore are helping or hurting
* Different Kerry, Not So Swift
Out There: John Allen Kerry's ex calls cops on him, earning him DUI
* Saudis to Boost Oil Output (minor but positive Middle East news)
May we never see th
My fellows conservatives and Republicans don't want a right wing slashdot, just balance out some of the lefty stuff, k? We're geeks of different opinions of worldviews, so can you throw some of us in the minority a bone here? Please!
Slashdot is generally a highly-informed, young, educated group of people. Politically informed, young, and educated people *tend* to oppose Bush. Less educated, older, rural and religious citizens *tend* to support Bush. Such is life -- you have a user demographic that is generally hostile to your opinions.
Furthermore, a large chunk of the conservatives on Slashdot are Libertarian supporters, and Bush has pretty much done the exact opposite of what they want -- he's been fiscally liberal, hasn't supported the original Constitution, and been socially conservative. Libertarians generally want conservative views towards keeping the original meaning of the Constitution, minimizing government spending, and are socially liberal (pro lesbian and gay rights and so forth).
You are more than free to post your conservative comments and criticism, though! If you're worried about a Bush-supporting voice getting out, go ahead and post!
May we never see th
This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected...Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
Okay, I admit that I'm not very familiar with Soros's background. However, just on logical grounds alone, your set of claims seems pretty absurd. If he's only interested in himself and his wealth, then why would he give away all his money if it would ensure that Bush didn't get re-elected? That just doesn't pan out.
May we never see th
You know, I've seen a number of posts attacking Soros' character. It took me a moment to realize that they're all from you.
Seriously, if you don't like Soros' points, great. Rebut what he wrote. I'm just not interested in reading someone flaming someone's past character. It isn't relevant as to whether I buy into the man's points or not. Soros might like to screw midgets in Times Square, but if he wrote an intelligent article, then he wrote an intelligent article.
May we never see th
Wikipedia's article on fascism seems to take a different stance.
May we never see th
I am just saying you shouldn't buy Kerry's Vaporware, your best interests would be served by voting either independent or Green or Liberatarian (Which is my party of choice and my suggestion to you). Yes, if you live in a swing state, your vote going to Nader(I) or Badnarik(L) could result in Bush winning that state and most likely being re-elected, but you win in the sense that in 2008 the DNC is more likely to listen to you.
This is wrong, and generally hurts those who listen to you.
If you were right -- that the DNC would flip over to Nader or Badnarik supporters in the next election -- you would already see things happening. Nader's presence in Florida in 2000 was what gave Bush the election, and we have a down-to-the-wire election this year. You can't ask for a better scenario for convincing the Demms to listen to Nader demands. However, it clearly isn't happening, as evidenced by your discontent with Kerry. So your philosophy of "throw away your vote as a protest" clearly is ineffectual. The *actual* impact of throwing away your vote is to give one vote to those who prefer the candidate you most dislike of the Big Two.
No, I don't like the current system, but I'm realistic. Preferential or instant run-off or another form of vote reform getting pushed through is the *only* way that third parties will ever become significant under the American voting system. I'd support that wholeheartedly. But voting for a third party in the election is just throwing away your vote. There's no point in throwing tantrums about the existing election system -- it doesn't accomplish what you want. The election scheme isn't a forum (or at least an effective one) -- it's a place to choose the next President of the United States. If you choose not to take advantage of it, you simply hurt yourself.
Do the smart thing. Vote for your favorite of the two major candidates, and then push for vote reform so that your favorite of *all* the candidates actually has a serious shot at the White House.
May we never see th
I really can't believe Kerry isn't doing better than he is. I mean whatever ideals or beliefs you have, he's taken your side. He's the only guy out there that will bravely take every position on every issue and defend all of them. With Bush, he just takes one position on each issue and sticks with it, it's crazy.
Clinton's Doonesbury symbol *was* a waffle. Kerry hasn't come close. Clinton is famous for saying nothing, not committing, and giving "I feel your pain" speeches.
So...who do you feel was a better president? Bush or Clinton? The Idiot Hawk Bible-Thumper or The Big Waffle With A Penis?
Because I kinda preferred Clinton's administration to Bush's (much less secretive and less interested in domestic surveillance, no Iraq, no economy in the shitter), and I figure that if that's the case, then any issues with *Kerry* waffling are even less of an issue.
Clinton and Gore used the Information Superhighway (okay, the Internet these days) as an important chunk of their platform. They are a major reason that so much funding and development went into the Internet, and why it spread so insanely quickly. I'm enjoying their legacy at the moment as I'm typing away. What's Bush's equivalent? Stopping medical research? Discouraging charities from informing people about condoms in AIDS-stricken areas? What positive things has Bush done? What good things can I remember him for four years after he's out of office? I can't think of anything other than fear-mongering and conducting new wars.
May we never see th
"my fellows conservatives and Republicans"
You're no conservative. You might think you are, but you're not. I know it's very very hard to look at the facts, but in the end if you're intelligent you would prefer anyone to Bush. Even someone who takes YOUR money and gives it to welfare moms.
As a conservative, I cannot vote for Bush in the coming election. I'm just too intelligent. I can draw conclusions.
There are two possibilities regarding the soros speech attached: One, it is a lie, and the factual things he says he believes will happen if Bush is re-elecetd, he does not actually believe.
However, i don't think he's outright lying, because it doesn't seem like baseless rhetoric. It seems like this man has a good enough understanding of how the world works to become a BILLIONAIRE on his fiscal understanding alone.
If you think that Soros is not a more intelligent man than I am, you're kidding yourself.
The only question then is whether he's representing his views truthfully.
How all these self-made men, or those who've escaped totalitarian regimes reject mad power grabs and inexplicable demands for increased government secrecy.
They must hate freedom. Almost as much as the American generals who've dedicated their whole adult lives to defending their homeland and yet disagree with the current administration.
The man criticizes Bush's policies, and laments the errosion of the most charished of American ideals, and the republican goofballs are on TV saying he hates America? Seems like he loves it enough to put his money where his heart is.
As opposed to you?
May we never see th
You are right, and worse. Soros is a very bad man. He makes money by shorting the currency of third-world nations in financial and political stress. The intention is generally to cause the stress to increase past the breaking point, resulting in the destruction of the economy and often the political system of the target country.
This man profits from the destruction of other nations and uses economic force to make it happen.
I agree with him that Bush needs to go. But in all the world, I can think of no one else but Soros who could compete with Bush for the title of antichrist (e.g. bloodthirsty, greedy and genocidal).
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
There's a lot of rich individuals "getting away with things" these days and doing exactly what they want.
Then again, I guess it's nothing new.
What idiot modded the parent as a Troll?
It's Bush Bashing for Nerds. By comparison, CBS is a bastion of journalistic integrity.
But I'd like to point out that Soros has put far more than two cents into this election.
Canthros
While I may or may not disagree with some of Soros' views regarding Bush (who I am not a big fan of, by the way), one major issue I have with Soros is his support and funding for the various anti-2nd Ammendment groups out there. Groups such as the Million Mom March (more like the 1000 Mom March, but whatever), the Brady Center (formerly Handgun Control Inc.), etc. Soros is also a big supporter of a proposed UN Treaty that would outlaw private ownership of firearms.
I simply cannot support anyone who is so vehemently opposed to my Rights as a US citizen.
I noticed though that his thoughts on anything other than Bush or Iraq aren't posted on his website. I wonder if he's trying to hide his other political views because they aren't as popular as his anti-Bush stance...
The dry fish swims alone.
Most big money makes big cowards out of the people who hold it. Soros seems cut from much braver material. Of course, he as also LOST a few billion along the way to becoming a billionaire so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
I'm about to just stop coming to slashdot since I'm having this CRAMMED DOWN MY THROAT.
Maybe they recognize that having informed voters is more important than telling people about the new iPod Mini colors or beta versions of release candidates of FreeBSD. Why would any person not want to be informed about the presidential election in the U.S.? The person holding that office will have more effect on the tech sector than Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds combined. The President of the U.S. is the one who will either sign or veto bills on everything from Digital Rights Management to reinstating the draft. Check the box for politics. Read the articles. Read the comments. Participate in the discussions. Try to make a difference.
The only thing good about the Clinton years was that 6 of the 8 were tied up in enough gridlock to prevent the government from doing much harm.
Do you remember the economy? It was under Clinton that it flourished. We reduced the deficit to the point of having a surplus. We had a President and Vice President who were pro-tech (rather than pro-oil-company).
As it is, I'm sticking with the president who shattered the Al Quaida network, overthrew both the Taliban and the Ba'ath regimes, got Libya to turn end and fully disclose their WMD programs, and continues to doggedly pressure Iran and North Korea.
Then you are sticking with a President who encourages terrorism by fomenting hate all over the world. How many terrorist acts have occurred in Iraq? How many people have been taken captive and cruelly beheaded? How many soldiers have been killed by roadside bombs? If he "shattered the Al Quaida network", where's Bin Laden? Why does Washington DC look like a war zone with concrete barricades and soldiers carrying automatic weapons?
And you're sticking with a President who has used 9/11 as an excuse to gut the Constitution. We have people held prisoner for months, and even years, that have not been charged with anything, are not being given access to attorneys, and who have not seen their families. We have the PATRIOT Act, a despicable piece of legislation that does away with your rights to due process while giving law enforcement sweeping powers with no judicial oversight.
I don't give two shits what he did as a young Naval Reserve officer in Vietnam, and it seems that most people feel the same way.
Then care about the fact that Kerry knows the horror of war personally. What does G.W. Bush, a man who had daddy pull strings to prevent him from serving in Vietnam, know about war? Bush callously sends young men and women to die in Iraq yet has never even attended a funeral for one of the fallen soldiers. He won't even let the news media show the caskets because he wants to keep the American public from seeing the real cost of his war.
That was, quite simply, the most impressive, reasoned, and intelligent post that I've seen on Slashdot in quite a long time. In fact, most newspapers would be hard-pressed to find writers who could craft political commentary that well. Bravo!
then start submitting some pro-bush links or conservative links... you are probably the guy who refuses to vote then complains about taxes...
How quickly we forget. The 2000 election was pre-9/11. The entire U.S. perspective on the world changed sharply after that.
Before 9/11/2001, terrorism was something that happened overseas. Sure, there was the earlier Trade Center attack and Oklahoma City, but we viewed those with as isolated incidents, not as signs of a global culture war.
We now understand that we need to defeat the use of terrorism. We understand that the world is a lot smaller than it used to be, and that we are not safe. We understand that it's pointless to fight terrorists while turning a blind eye to the nations who sponsor, aid, and encourage terrorist organizations.
The choice, as I see it, devolves to reacting against individual terrorist attacks and proactively fighting the idea of terrorism by action against states who sponsor it.
On one point at least, Mr. Soros is correct: we will have to live with our decision.
sigs, as if you care.
Hitler wasn't so bad for Soros. Some here have portrayed him as a concentration camp survivor, and thus he has the right to bring up Hitler. Well, no. He was shipped off to London and avoided the fate of the majority of Hungarian jews. He is a vocal antagonist with regards to Israel.
So, for Soros, yeah, Bush is probably a lot worse than Hitler. Without Hitler, he'd probably be an anonymous professor in Budapest right now.
#19845
Maybe someone who remembers that MoveOn.org did not endorse (and even removed) the Bush-Hitler ad that was produced and uploaded to MoveOn.org by a third-party? Maybe someone who remembers that Clinton and the rest of the world didn't think the CIAs evidence was good enough to warrant a foolish invasion? (Seems they were right, too.) And did the poster even respond to the content of Soros's piece? No. He is just flinging crap (whether or not it's true) and attempting to make some long guilt-by-association chain.
I have yet to see anyone dispute this.
No matter what the word is the situation is the same. Blame everything on the JEWS.
Using that word is just the politicaly correct way of Jew bashing. A certain ultra-liberal actually listed them in her column. When it was pointed out to her she was only listing Jews she convienently went back and added some "Gentiles".
If you go check the press you will find many references to NEO-CON. This is quite different than neo-conservative but sometimes is used interchangeably by people ignorant of the term.
Suggestion, avoid the term. Certain elements on the loonie left (not the regular left, just as their is a religious right there is a loonie left) picked up on this term to hide their bigotry.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They actually didn't remove it. The link was always still there and being used in the forums. In fact, Drudge posted a direct link to it MONTHS AFTER they said it was removed.
If he disapproved of their behavior he wouldn't have continued to support them.
So yeah, MoveOn.org is Soro's pile of political dog shit that he endorses.
Being opinionated does not make this post a troll.
I believe George Soros tossed a few more than 2 cents into the ring... http://www.actforvictory.org/
George Soros is many things, but a liberal lefty he ain't! Ever read his book 'On Globalisation?' Interesting read, if a bit difficult to get a grasp of some of the concepts since I don't have an economics degree. But he isn't one of these clueless anti-globalisation protesters who wear Gap T-shirts. He has well-considered views about how the international financial institutions (IMF, WTO, and World Bank) could be reformed to help them better achieve their stated goals.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
So far all I have heard from the right has been personal attacks on Soros ("what about the Hitler jibe," "what about all his money") rather than actually try to refute anything he actually says. He must be doing something right.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Drill baby drill - on Mars
"We have an American political spectrum, okay? It's a subset of the whole spectrum."
Only thanks to people like you and your idol, Eugene McCarthy. This is supposed to be a free country and you are supposed to be able to have the political views of your choosing as long as you aren't trying to seize power or otherwise violate the constitution.
Obviously that isn't the case in America because people like you and Gene have mercilessly persecuted anyone who doesn't conform to your narrow and twisted view of the world.
All in all, you seem really big on "Freedom" until someone uses it in a way you don't like and personally approve of and at that point you seem to be first in line to deny other people their freedom. Freedom really is empty rhetoric to you and your friends in the Republican party and the moral majority, isn't it.
Capitalism has great strengths, it also has great weakness, like all complex systems. It isn't a sacred cow, and the people who treat it like one are likely to undermine its strengths, and enhance its flaws.
One obvious example being if you let it run unchecked you are going to end up with a bunch of monopolies, or maybe eventually one monopoly, that will end up destroying the free markets you so breathlessly praise. Is that OK with you? After all its just market forces at work so it must be OK, right? Your not going to let the government intervene in the markets to stop it are you, sacrilege.
Another obvious example of how capitalism rings hollow in America today, the so called "Medicare Reform Bill", where your Republican party, champions of free markets forbade Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs to get a fair price. It is, all in all, a blatant intervention in free markets by big government. It is nothing more than the Republicans transfering large sums from tax payers pockets in to the pockets of their wealthy friends in the drug and health industries. I am outraged at this anti-capitalist behavior, take them out and shoot them.
Left unchecked Capitalism is going to result in massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a very lucky, very few, especially if the Republicans continue to move to a regressive tax system, and continue to use the government to transfer money from tax payers to their friends.
You would probably sing praises of that as "the law of the jungle" and "survival of the fittest". Well it is more an inherent result of capitalism that if you have lots of capital its really easy to make a lot more of it. If you're in that lucky few I guess it is something to sing praises of...as long as you live in a gated community with enough armed guards to deal with the other 99% of the world you've pushed in to abject poverty and starvation, pushed them by exploiting them and looting every available corner of the world so you can have yours.
@de_machina
I am glad someone has finally made at least an implicit comparison between Afghanistan and Iraq because Afghanistan is the counter-example for all of Bush's terrorist rhetoric. Nobody, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal, argues that we should not have attacked Afghanistan, but half of the country objects to the invasion of Iraq. Why? The reasons for objecting to the war cannot be exclusively ideological because people with all sorts of ideologies supported the war in Afghanistan but oppose it in Iraq. At least some of the objections must be for specific, practical reasons, and not for any ideological reasons.
1) We have not captured the instigator of the 9/11 attacks and the most imminent threat to national security, Osama bin Laden. The resources necessary to do so have been directed to Iraq. Does anyone doubt that if we had 100,000 troops in southeastern Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden would still be free?
2) We are not done in Afghanistan. Afghanistan may yet end up in civil war and a haven for terrorists because in our rush to go to war with Iraq we do not have adequate resources on the ground to keep the peace and enforce the rule of law.
3) The war with Iraq was an elective war (See Jeffrey Record's paper for the Army War College). Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. This is not a matter of hindsight. It was the general consensus of the rest of the world and even within the US government. Saddam Hussein wasn't going anywhere. We could have waited until after a democratic and peaceful Afghanistan emerged before we confronted Saddam.
4) Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs to give to anyone, nor would he have ever developed any WMDs had we continued the process of containment and inspections. Again, this is not hindsight, it was the general consensus of the rest of the world, and there was no need to go against this consensus with out specific and credible evidence. Clearly something had to be done in the long-term about Saddam, but now was not the time.
I don't object to war in general and clearly the war in Afghanistan is an example of a just war, but the war with Iraq was an elective war that distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Because we did not finish the war in Afghanistan the terrorist organization that attacked America is still free and they along with their allies are free to continue planning attacks on Americans. Americans are less safe in America, abroad, and in Iraq because we didn't take the time to do things right.
What was the rush to invade Iraq? There was no specific and credible evidence that Saddam had WMDs or the intention of giving them to anyone else even if he did have them. The only possible answer is that 9/11 provided a unique opportunity for the president to execute a war on Iraq. Why did he want to go to war with Iraq? There are many possible reasons but national security and WMDs, the only reasons that could have justified the war, had nothing to with it despite what our prevaricating president may have said.
Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster. He didn't protect us from 9/11. He didn't catch the people responsible for committing the atrocious acts of 9/11. He did get us involved in an elective war that was not in the interest of national security and distracted us from catching the people responsible for 9/11. He then proceeded to screw up this elective war, failed to win the peace, and opened up a new front in the war on terror without securing the old one. Not to mention that he has diminished the respect that the rest of the world has for our country by dishonoring it, by putting power above principle; notice how Bush's justifications for his actions will change as the previous justification is proven false; he does not care why things are done as long as he gets his way. Yet, this horribly flawed foreign policy will get this immoral and misguided man re-elected as president of the United States because of spin, propaganda, and money, pure and simple. Unbelievable.
Thats funny. I was thinking the exact opposite.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
...The fact is, when the nightmare scenario came true, he froze.
I personally love this argument, what was the right course of action then?
To immediately, but in a calm voice, excuse himself and tell the children that he had to go back to the White House for "something really important." He should have then exited the school and then been briefed as he returned to the White House. In the 20 minutes it took to get back to the White House, he should have been making decisions (scramble fighters? divert aircraft en-route to DC and New York? dismiss government employees from potential non-military targets like the Treasury?) and issuing appropriate orders.
Regardless of whether he was elected or selected, the President of the United States is supposed to show leadership and an ability to respond quickly and decisively. He's the Commander In Chief of the military and he owes it to this country to do more than sit and read to children when the country is under attack.
Thats funny. I was thinking the exact opposite.
That's not funny. That's scary.
Not anymore, I changed it to better fit what I believe.
Isn't Wikipedia cool!
Isn't the Pills for Votes program that Bush signed "Socialized healthcare"?
Isn't the huge growth in Non Defense/Non Homeland Security spending that bush has signed support of "nefficient Government Programs"?
And what would you call No Child Left Behind? Isn't it support of "Failing State Run Public Schools"?
You think it is scary that somebody disagrees with you? I guess humility isn't one of your strengths.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
If you were really a Republican and you understood essential doctrines of conservatism, you would be of the mindset that voting for Bush is the most Republican option available, as compared to not voting at all, or voting for an even less-Republican candidate. Current spending isn't favorable, although it is mostly attributable to Defense, Homeland, and the WoT. Otherwise the administration has done a decent job of keeping other spending growth down.
Fraud and Lies are justifiable means, because ends are very important, eh?
And much more intelligent articles have been written on the topic (I linked to them, from authors at Mises.org and LewRockwell.com in another response to someone). And Soros is only half-way intelligent: we shouldn't be in Iraq and we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan either.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Didn't taco say the politics section was going to have a balance of opinion and wouldn't be slanted either way?
... it's become all too clear that facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda." Does that mean you should balance facts with lies to avoid bias?
Balanced does NOT mean showing the viewpoints of both sides equally. There is such a thing as objective truth, and there is far more value in examining what is actually true in the world, and how politics should reshape itself to fit those facts.
Showing two-sided propaganda does not lead to that truth. And as the quote from the Daily Show goes, "How does one report the facts in an unbiased way when the facts themselves are biased.
No it's not. I've never seen someone so way of the mark.
Nothing prevents a country from implementing both fascist and communist policies, both of which are different implementations of socialism.
Dead wrong.
Of course, Socialism in the original definition is simply impossible
Wrong.
to understand this, you have to understand what Marx meant by Socialism
The vision of Socialism by Marx, Marxism, is what is now called "Communism".
the socialization of all factors of production
No: the ownership by the State of all means of productions. This is more than "socialization": in "social security" for instance, the State is can be paying private companies (Medicare etc...). If you don't understand this tremendous difference you don't understand communism, socialism, and modern social democracy.
economic calculation is impossible
Not true. Even inside a company, costs can (and are computed), despite everything is owned by the company. Same for the State, it can do economic calculation. This is something that libetarian ideologists missed.
thus prosperity is impossible
That's not the reason prosperity is impossible. The reason is that people have no incentive to work harder, or hard at all. 1) If the productivity of worker was sufficient, it could be that working one hour per week is enough to produce all necessary goods (maybe in 1 or 2 centuries it would be indeed the case) ; 2) If you provide an incentive BY OTHER MEANS, prosperity can still be achieved. In Stalinist USSR, this incentive was, in some case, "you have to meet the quotas or you will be labeled as a traitor and shot dead" - this may be even more effective than capitalism and free market: people tend to be more efficient when you threaten to kill them, than when they just might want more money to buy a bigger SUV.
You think it is scary that somebody disagrees with you?
I think it's scary when someone can't see the value in something as clear, coherent, and well-written as the post I commended.
I guess humility isn't one of your strengths.
The average NAMBLA member probably disagrees with you about the appropriateness of sex with young boys. Could you see their disagreement with you as 'scary'? If so, would that indicate that you lack humility?
I think it's scary when someone can't see the value in something as clear, coherent, and well-written as the post I commended.
Ah- then you should love this post. It is clear, coherent, well-written, and it has the added bonus of being based on the truth!
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Thank you for that link. Now let's look at the post:
Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, and nobody from the Bush administration has made that claim.
That is untrue. For example, in September of 2003, Dick Cheney said Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The very first claim in the post is patently untrue.
You know, context is important when you are quoting people. Here is the whole transcript:I think it is very clear what Cheney was saying- a free and democratic Iraq will transform the entire middle east, a place that has been the base of most terrorist activity against us. He was NOT saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11- especially considering they covered that exact topic in direct questions earlier in the interview.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Soros is a lunatic. Only a lunatic would claim that Bush is worse than Hitler.
When did Soros claim that Bush is worse then Hitler?
This web site also claims that Bush deliberately lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq
He was either horribly wrong, or deliberately lied. Either way, the WMD which provided the reason for the war have yet to be found. There never was an Imminent' Threat.
Finally, no airplanes were allowed to fly to Saudia Arabia in the days after 9/11.
Nice spin there. Can you provide links to prove that no airplanes whatsoever flew to other countries in the days after?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Fraud and Lies are justifiable means, because ends are very important, eh?
The means are inseperable from the ends, and they determine its ultimate meaning. Its like the Heisenberg Uncertanity Principle (you remember that, right?) where you can never know both the position and momentum of a particle, because the act of observing, in and of itself, alters them. There is no way for a human to take an immoral path to an end without the path altering the end.
"The ends justify the means" is a common logical fallicy propagated by those who desire, especially in politics, to rationalize their brutality. As terrorists do.
Read this: http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html
Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
Sept 29, 2003
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.
The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.
Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.
The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.
Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."
Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.
Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."
The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Ir
I skimmed over your rubbish, and will respond as briefly as possible.
What you call "law" is nothing more than meaningless declarations on a piece of paper. Simply because a group of men get together and write something down on a piece of paper doesn't mean it has any legitimacy. Mafia bosses could also get together and write a "constitution". Also, the Constitution doesn't protect us, because it is precisely the same State that is supposed to be limited by the Constitution that interprets it. Again, I suggest you read Hoppe's book on Democracy, monarchy, and the natural order.
The assertion that no ancient State lasted as long as the US can only come from gross historical ignorance. Among some prominent examples, I'd point to Egypt, Rome, and Greece. Also, you should note that there's a strong argument that the US was a different government after the Civil War, as opposed to before it. Oh yea, and there are Stateless societies that have lasted at least as long, if not much longer, than the US: Ancient Iceland (295 years) and Ancient Ireland (almost 1000 years). See Property Rights in Celtic Irish Law and PRIVATE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW: A HISTORICAL CASE.
The corruption of the Constitution has nothing to do with the fact that some people can become much more wealthy than others. It is a predictable result of such a governmental system, where it is in the interests of all those in the government to expand it's power, including the courts that are supposed to interpret the Constitution. The theoretical "last line of defense" of the Constitution would be citizens bearing arms, but the US government has largely nullified that.
You do not seem to understand monopoly. Whenever there is a monopoly -- that is, the criminalization of competition in a certain area -- the quality of service declines while the price of service increases. This is just as true of justice, protection, and police as of anything else. Now, these things can easily be provided for absence of States. Free-market competitition provides them, namely in the form of insurance protection agencies, which allows even those not extremely rich to be able to afford it. Also, as in Ancient Iceland, the possibility to sell the right to extract restitution/retrbituion from a criminal allows even the poorest to obtain justice.
Since States never have been legitimate from the start -- but merely one person's coercsion over another -- talking about "their property" misses the boat. For an exposition of how a libertartian society would work, see For a New Liberty. For an exposition of the fallacies of the kinds of arguments your making about protection and how the State can best provide it, see Myth of National Defense. You have not refuted any of my arguments.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
You'd be right on-the-money except for one thing - George Soros (as people have described here) is about as republican as they come.
/. - even while the players have the gall to insist that they're trying to be fair.
Late reply, but this has got to be one of the biggest and boldest lies I've read on Slashdot - and that's saying A LOT. He's about as Republican as Ted Kennedy. Look up his donations - just because he's a rich capitalist doesn't make him Republican.
He has been an exceedingly generous donor to Democratic organizations and candidates for YEARS. Look him up.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp
Sort by amount - notice a pattern? Similar to the pattern here on
Playing the man instead of the ball indeed. Soros is a Democratic party tool. He is as partisan as they come.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Bad URL: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp
" reply, but this has got to be one of the biggest
" and boldest lies I've read on Slashdot - and
" that's saying A LOT. He's about as Republican as
" Ted Kennedy. Look up his donations - just
" because he's a rich capitalist doesn't make him
" Republican.
Ok, touche - I was unaware of his donations prior to 2000. I assumed the donations after 2000 were because of his dislike of Bush. Nice link btw, if a bit sarcastic.
Republican was the wrong word... 'rightist' is a better phrase. In fact, 'rightist' was the phrase that I used in my original post. I regret my mis-statement here.
Anyway, I didn't mean to be misleading. However, I stand by my original statement as to him being rightist. The more I look at his site and books, the more I see that he favors policies that would make a true leftist wince:
- true laissez-faire economies
- full freedom of trade
- 'favored' status for major monetary players like the IMF
- legalization and corporatization of drugs
- capitalization of environmental affairs (ie:
make good environmental policies follow from
private ownership (ie: if everything is
owned, including nature, people will have an
incentive to protect their investment.
He's more libertarian than anything else. I'm guessing his support of the democratic party stems from him disliking the current incarnation of the republican party more than anything else (and no I don't know that for sure).
Yes, my statement about him being republican was a mis-statement, but calling him a democratic tool is just as misleading.
Again, like I said why don't you take his points that he made inside his article and rebut them? I maintain that what you are doing is still partisan by ignoring the issues and attacking the man.
horos
McCarthy that is.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
He is a Democratic tool - he's been a big fund raiser since well before 2000. I searched back to '92 and he was still writing $x0,000 checks to the DNC/DCCC/etc. It has nothing to do with the current administration, he's a dyed in the wool Democrat, and has been for years. His intent (admittedly so, at least he's more honest than CBS) is to sway voter opinion. That sort of taints most of what he's presenting.
I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times.
That's a flat out lie. Do a little research on the guy even beyond the millions he's dumped into political causes. See campaign finance reform, where he simultaneously tries to minimize other people's influence (McCain-Feingold) and dumps $10s of MILLIONS of dollars into largely or purely partisan causes. Note also that many of his 'philanthropic' activities all have a rather left political slant to them.
Soros may not fit with your perception of what the Democrats supposedly stand for, but that's the case. He isn't handing out $10s of millions of dollars to Badnarik, so it's rather ludicrous to call him a Libertarian (even with a small l).
I have a hard time believing the man since he obviously lies about his political involvement to try and decieve the reader into believing that he's just some concerned citizen. It's also funny that he favorably compares Kerry to Bush when one of his big gripes is preemptive policies - see Kerry's statements on Crossfire in 1997, or his letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq to disarm them of their WMDs in 1998. That makes Soros (and Kerry, BTW) either dumb, uninformed, or just deceptive partisans. I think we all know which one is correct.
Also, I have no responsibility to refute his letter. He is the partisan, he is being deceptive, and he is even outright lying. I am merely pointing that out - as well as the fact that you are quite mistaken about his political stances. You apparently took his letter at face value, and don't really know anything about the guy. So I suppose it's "interesting" from an apolitical point of view, as per your submission, but it's pure propaganda. You ought to know a little bit more about him before you try and paint him as a libertarian or anything other than the political tool that he is.
That sort of brings us back to the comment that you took exception to - which was correct. Soros is not some "rightist" that suddenly took a look at the current "rightist" president and found issues, as you suggest. This is just the latest chapter in his long string of purely partisan multi-million dollar support for the Democrats.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
> That's a flat out lie. Do a little research on the
> guy even beyond the millions he's dumped into
> political causes. See campaign finance reform,
> where he simultaneously tries to minimize other
> people's influence (McCain-Feingold) and dumps
> $10s of MILLIONS of dollars into largely or purely
> partisan causes. Note also that many of his
> 'philanthropic' activities all have a rather left
> political slant to them.
I did do a little research. Like I said, he's a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, *far* more right than the democratic party. He's even said that the reason why he doesn't favor the current Republican party is because they are heavily interventionist and heavily statist.
Like I said, he may not be a 'republican' in its current form, but he sure as hell is rightist.
Again, like I said, stop playing the man, and start playing the ball. He's never been *directly* involved in partisan politics - which means that he doesn't personally 'speak out'. It doesn't mean that he hasn't dabbled in politics or given contributions.
All of this is irrelevant anyhow.. what is relevant is what he has to *say*, not who he is.
Respond to his points and you won't be playing cheap politics.
horos
(
ps - you could say that Nader is a 'tool of the republicans' (people do). He accepts heavy republican contributions, after all. Does that mean he's a republican?
)
You're the one playing the man (me) not the ball (Soros's alleged independence). You made a false statement, I corrected it. You're trying to obfuscate this and redirect me to engage his documented lies and established political agenda, and spinning him as a libertarian, again, when he spends $10s of MILLIONS of dollars to advance Democratic causes. Directly. Dabbled? DABBLED? Wow. You're touched.
Respond to my points with something that refutes the evidence that he's deeply entrenched with the DNC and has been for well over 10 years and $10s of MILLIONS of dollars. I was taking issue with YOUR misstatements. You have nothing to back your bizarre assessment up other than his implied neutrality (and alleged libertarianism ROTFLMAO!), which is obviously false.
Your Nader comment makes no sense to me. As well, you keep trying to spin Soros as something less than a dyed in the wool Democrat. Actions speak louder than words, and Soros has many actions which speak far louder than his silly little rant about Bush (and I illustrated why it's silly above, since he compares Kerry favorably when Kerry supported the same policies until he decided to flip-flop).
Ask Soros about what he did to Russia sometime. He's a real sweetheart.
Oh well, I tried. You clearly won't consider the obvious facts. And you say I'm playing cheap politics! Hah.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
> Your Nader comment makes no sense to me. As well,
Its fairly easy to understand IMO. Nader takes republican contributions, gets put on the ballot and splits the vote. Hence, people saying "Vote Nader and Bush '04". Actions speak louder than, right?
> you keep trying to spin Soros as something less
> than a dyed in the wool Democrat. Actions speak
Tell you what - lets forget about Soros' affiliation. I think he's libertarian based on the books he wrote, you think he's a democrat because of the contributions he's made.
Fair enough. Let's say he's a complete asshole. IT DOESN'T MATTER. Playing the ball not the man means talking about the issues, not talking about the person's background.
What matters is his points. Anyways, you've tried to bring up a counter argument (Kerry's flip-flop) which doesn't make much sense in the context of what Mr Soros said: his point was that this election was by far a referendum on the war, doesn't have anything to do with the commander in chief. If we re-elect Bush, that we solidify the strong anti-american sentiment that's growing around the world.
Right now, he's not worried about polls in this country but polls in *other countries* where he states our best(!) ally Britain has 16% approval rating for Bush, down to about 4% in France - and that "George Bush ran on a humble foreign policy in 2000" and has ended up alienating pretty much all our allies. As well as running up - in one year - a deficit about equal to *four* years of the worst postwar deficits.
That's the issue that I'd like to see debated. I bring it up here simply because you've shown interest in what I've thought - but unfortunately, I haven't seen a clear rebuttal about any of this, and I've read a hell of a lot online to try to get a clear response.
Anyway, I used to agree with you on Kerry being a flip-flopper, but now I'm not so sure. He had IMO a very clear message in the debates about the Iraq foreign policy - that he was persuaded that - in authorizing the use of force for the president - that Mr Bush would have gone through every possible contingency for peace and would have secured the same overwhelming coalition that his father did in 1991.
In other words, that he went about the war THE WRONG WAY. That instead of rushing into Iraq, we should have secured Afghanistan first, then perhaps yemen, all the while pressuring Iraq through the combination of sanctions and weapons inspectors. And, that at some point, the *world* would have lost its patience with Saddam Hussein and *then* we could have invaded him with the world at our back.
Its true that there's a lot of hindsight involved in this argument, but it makes sense. It should also be able to be checked via vote record.
any ideas on where to find something like this?
horos
Is there really a culture war?
What are the sides? Think about that carefully.
"defeat the use of terrorism."
How is that possible? Terrorism is a tactic. It's like "defeating the future use of hand held weapons in a robbery". Very implausible.
Terrorist groups today carry out these attacks against civilian targets because they do NOT have the power to fight a regular arm forces.
Whenever a small group wishes to hurt a major power that it cannot confront directly, they WILL resort to terrorist tactics.
Certainly, it is appropriate to act against states that sponsor terrorists. However, some state do NOT have effecive control of their entire conuntry. For example, Pakistan and Afghanistan have substantial areas that do not respond to central government authority. So what do you propose we do? Send troops to take over the region? Will we need to police ALL the regions of the world with weak central government? Do you see how impossible that is?
But MORE critical, in my mind, is the need to remove the conditions which feeds and grows these terrorist organizations in the first place. It disturbs me greatly that this issue is not discussed at all in the current election. It is going to require a clear understanding of how the USA (with its pre-eminent economic & military power) is viewed by the rest of the world. It's going to take a long term effort in communication and in actions to change those views.
Unfortunately, having a president who talks about leading a "crusade" and how "God wanted him to become President" is not going to be very convincing to the muslims of the world (1/4 of would population).
You know Marx never really explained how "Communism" would work, probably because he only used it to get the anarcho-socialists on board. What Marx really wanted was the U.S.S.R., as it looked almost exactly like what he said it should. Fortunately for us, Marx didn't understand why, economically, such a system could never last.
The only mention Marx ever gave about the "Communism" stage was that people would be 'educated' [programmed, since such a system views people as parts of a machine] to automagically start getting along during the Socialism stage. All of the anarcho-socialists that wised up to this were killed, imprisoned, or exported.
Modern Marxists and Trotskyists are typically always socialist-authoritarians who don't really care all that much for Communism, but rather seek some sort of Socialist regime in their own right (that or they're just ignorant of economics). These people tend to take the 'good' things from Socialism and the 'good' things from anarcho-Communism and say, "err... We've got it at last! Praise Marx! Eradicate the bourgeois!" In reality, these people are rarely given any say.
Oh yeah, and they're even more vague in their description of economics in such a system as well... like the modern anarcho-syndaclist Noam Chomsky, whom you might have seen our little friend Cryofan vociferously advertising.
"Not true. Even inside a company, costs can (and are computed), despite everything is owned by the company. Same for the State, it can do economic calculation. This is something that libetarian ideologists missed."
You completeld misunderstand, either intentionally or out of your own ignorance, what the former was saying about economic calculation being impossible. States cannot accurately calculate supply and demand, particularly demand. The State can also not efficiently meet those demands overtime, as not only do directly associated factors require payment, but so does the bureaucracy. Even Asimov's "econometrics" system misses this.
"In Stalinist USSR, this incentive was, in some case, "you have to meet the quotas or you will be labeled as a traitor and shot dead" - this may be even more effective than capitalism and free market: people tend to be more efficient when you threaten to kill them, than when they just might want more money to buy a bigger SUV."
Yeah, maybe this is why productivity began to drop significantly after the first few years of the Soviet Union and was only briefly inflamed again when they were successfully able to hype up a growing war with the West.
If you seriously can stand behind the idea that killing or imprisoning people to make them work more is prosperity, then I seriously have to question your mental health... or at the least your morality.
I do ask, in all your erudition, if you would be so kind as you say why the former poster got all of that wrong, instead of saying, "No, wrong", "You're way off the mark" or whatever.
Anonymous cowardous and lack of explanation removes any sort of clout that you might normally have had.
Speckpot?