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."
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
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.
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.
"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".)
Think! It ain't illegal yet.
--George Clinton
Think! It ain't illegal yet!
George Clinton
Ok, let me get this straight. You want to compare taking a bath doing CHARITY WORK for an entire country and asking for a little help to do MORE CHARITY work to something like say....
Stuff Dick Cheney Has Done
Stuff Bush Has Done
The criminal records of his appointees
I'm just having a hard time seeing your point. No matter how much of a mountain you make out of that mole-hill, it just doesn't come close to a bunch of Enron buddies making a fortune off the peons. Now does it?
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
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.
As someone who survived the Holocuast, George Soros has the right to bring up comparisons with Hitler without invoking Godwin's law. The article by Soros was the first link in the main column of the page and is the basis of discussion here. It's the one where he gives a rational basis for his rabid anti-Bush stance. That is a valid basis for discussion, the fact that his reflections have made him "rabidly anti-Bush" does not dilute the weight of his argument.
If Bush is actually correct, and George Soros is wrong, then you should be able to show how; rather than deriding him for his destination while ignoring how he got there.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Mod the parent up.
It just shows how twisted US politics have become and how divided the nation is. Now we've go the right labeling a self-made capitalist billionaire as being 'left' and 'commie' when, simply, he disagrees with their *politics*.
Remember mega billionare Howard Hughes being hauled in front of the Congressional Committee on UnAmerican Activities during the wacko red-scare era, simply because he had his own opinions and wasn't afraid to express them? We're not back at that ugly point in history yet, but four more years of the Uber Right should do it.
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
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.
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.
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.
But yet you failed to address the basic question and its the question thats always avoided by those that front this as some point against Bush's character.
What could have been done that would have saved anymore lives in that 7 minutes?
Thankfully, nothing. And I say "thankfully" because "nothing" is exactly what Bush did. But it was pure, dumb luck. There could have been more hijacked planes. The military could have been waiting for shoot-down authority from the President. He didn't know what the whole situation was and did nothing to find out.
That Bush sat there, dazed and unresponsive, while our nation was under attack is a black mark against his character.
Let's try an analogy: Suppose that the town fire chief had been in that class talking to the children. Someone came in and quietly told him that there was a massive fire in town. Rather than getting up and excusing himself, he sat there for seven minutes as the children read aloud. It was later learned that the fire had already killed all of its victims by the time he was informed of it. Would you say that his inaction was a bad reflection on him or would you take the same "end justifies the means" attitude and say that his behavior was appropriate?