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."
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.
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.
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
"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
One of the few ways to speak your mind with more than a few listening to you is to be rich and not running for office.
This is so true. People wonder why Hollywood celebrities are so leftist, hate America, etc. because actresses and rock stars are always seen conspicuously bashing the president. You hear theories about some leftist cult that's taken over Hollywood, etc.
A much simpler explanation is that these are the loudest non-corporate opinions that the average citizen is likely to hear.
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
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.
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!!!
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.