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."
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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
Yeah but you forgot the first tennant of finance. If you steal $100,000 you get 10 years in the klink. If you steal $100 million they call you a banker. Soros got his initial wealth by looting (trading against) the British central bank. So it really is no surprise that he would be doing the same thing in Russia a few years later. A state bond is no more stealing from tax payers than a mortgage stealing from you, it facilitates the purchase of goods that you can't afford now. Sometimes this can be a very good thing (in the case of project that might take 30 years to pay off but will provide a tremendous amount of benefits if you built it now (vs waiting 30 years to save for it). It generally works fine in the private sector, the theft in the public sector comes in the form of projects that shouldn't be built with the governments money (surplus or deficit). Asking the state to make you whole is certainly an attempt to benefit you over the citizens of the country.
I've always found it ironic that a guy who made billions off bad central bank policies can give a few hundred million (possibly two years of interest) to economic development and gets a get out of jail free card from all the people who would normally hate him. He certainly knew the risks when he bought the bonds (and likely paid far less than par) this is akin to a credit agency buying some unpaid consumer debt for a few cents on the dollar and then petitioning congress to make this type of debt a senior lein on your house if it is unpaid. The whole rest of the market thought Russia would default Soros thought they were wrong, these are the situations when fortunes are won and lost, but you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I think this is covered in the Godwin's Law FAQ.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Are you saying that more people per capita die in car wrecks in the US then soldiers dying in Iraq?
- Auto Deaths for 2003
- Cars: 14.9 per 100,000
- SUVs: 16.4 per 100,000
- Pickup trucks: 15.2 per 100,000
- Vans: 11.2 per 100,000
In an article from April they said that there were 700 deaths for 135,000 troops. That was 13 months. That gives 479 deaths per 100,000. However, I am not sure whether that includes the war (I figured in the 1.5 months just in case). Let's try again. Here's a timeline. "Major Combat Operations" ended on 5/1/2003. On 9/7/2004, 1000th soldier was killed. That's 16.2 months, so using the same troop count (please feel free to correct me on this*), that gives 549 troop deaths per 100,000 !Yes, there may be more people dying per month in the US, but not per capita! You have to normalize these things to have a valid comparison. That's why we use rates! And 15 or 16 people dying per 100,000 is far, far, far less than 549 per 100,000!!! Please, check your logic and your math and think about it.
* If you correct my numbers, please show how the totals change. Thank you.
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
And I'll take you up as I like to use facts to back up statements instead of using my literary ability to talk out my ass!
What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
"* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary."
"* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports."
"* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'""
"* In 2001, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq."
Please read the rest for your self here
And yet more evidence here
Saddam's economy was in the tank. His infrastructure to reconsititue any weapons program was evicerated and atrophied to the point of being worthless.
Iraq's economy was bad, yes. But Saddam had the money he needed coming from the France and Germany through the oil for food program. One wonders why they were not supportive of US actions when they had such a sweet deal.
The irony is that since there were no weapons, and so Saddam was in complience afterall.
Hmm the UN doesn't seem to agree with you on that one. Please read The May 2004 Quarterly UNMOVIC Report which states:
"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence."
"Mr. Duelfer's publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a biological weapon programme."
"The Commission's experts are conducting an investigation...regarding the discovery of items from Iraq...at a scrapyard in the Netherlands....to investigate increased radiation readings...By comparing the serial production number on the engine with information in the UNMOVIC database, the experts were able to confirm that the engine was one from an SA-2 missile that had been tagged by United Nations inspectors in the past and had not been declared as having been fired. Representatives of the scrapyard company indicated that a number of similar engines (5 to 12)
You are a Republican? What does that mean? I don't mean to pick on you, but I ask this to a lot of people. Are you a registered Republican? Do you agree with all of the "planks" of the Republican platform? Probably not, so which do you disagree with?
I have several friends registered Democrat simply because they want to vote in the Democrat primary, not because they identify with any of the Democrat ideals. They will be probably be voting for Bush.
I cannot see how anyone who identifies with the Republican party could vote for Kerry. Kerry is against almost all of the basic beliefs of the Republican party itself. I do understand not voting because you disagree with Bush on major issues. Border control for example, but Kerry will do a much worse job. At least part of Bush's base keeps him in check. Kerry's base does not.
Take it from the other side. Would anyone have voted for Bob Dole because they thought Clinton was to Conservative? How about voting for Bush because Kerry voted for the Iraq war.
In my humble opinion, your "I am a Republican" statement has the same credibility as Kerry's orange tan.