Is that first number including the US? If so, then that means the US makes up ~23% of the world's GDP, and that China's was ~$5.7 trillion (or 9%), Japan's was $4.1 trillion (or 6.6%), and Russia's was $2.2 trillion (or 3.5%). Not sure how it's relevant, but good to know.Valhallen wrote:For the following, consider that in 2010, the world GDP was ~$62 trillion, and the US GDP was ~$14.5 trillion.
Yeah, but Murdoch is not actively pursuing any kind of worldwide or systemic change. He's never helped overthrow any oppressive regimes, or actively tried to get other news stations taken off the air (more on this below).Valhallen wrote:... Rupert Murdoch ... Billionaires tend to have their fingers in a lot of pies. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are (or are not) using them to advance particular political agendas.RuffDraft wrote: something like 500 organizations.
It's how he disguises his charitable giving, directly or through the Tides Foundation. That means that he can donate to anyone he choeses, freely, with very few, if any, restrictions. I'll get to Tides and whether or not he has done this in a moment.Valhallen wrote:What does it do advance Soros's supposed agenda?RuffDraft wrote:He owns the Open Society Institute
Well... this sums it up nicely. Scroll down about a third of the way and you'll find the names, Robert Bernstein, Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, and Linda Evans. Just to name a few.Valhallen wrote:Make the connection. Who did Soros give money to, who was responsible for the Days of Rage, and what influence did Soros have?RuffDraft wrote:he has donated money to the founding members of the Weather Underground
I'm glad you made that distinction. Yes, they got caught trying to register fake voters. And they've been trying to do it (possibly getting away with some but not all of their attempts) for years, going back as far as 2005 (and maybe further), according to FactCheck.Org. Some of these people have actually plead guilty to intentionally submitting false voter registration forms. One person said he did it because ACORN told them to do at least 20 a day (which ACORN denies, but I'm not sure I buy that). And ACORN simply brushes it off by firing a few employees or saying that any investigation it's part of a plot to suppress voter registration.
Well on the matter of how it implicates ACORN, I have no hard evidence.Valhallen wrote:How does this implicate the management of ACORN in political shenanigans, let alone Soros?
I'm sorry, I made a mistake; it was the Tides Foundation who funded the Apollo Alliance, who wrote the stimulus. With this in mind I shall reassert my point and clarify my position.Valhallen wrote:How do we know that, and what influence did Soros have in that or other Tides Foundation activities?RuffDraft wrote:to the Tides Foundation ... wrote the original, wasteful $700 billion stimulus
While I admit that Soros' involvement in this is more indirect, it is a fact that NPR was unhappy that Williams was even appearing on FoxNews. He made an opinionated comment and was fired. However, some woman did the same thing (gave an opinion, that is) and is still with them. It's pure hypocracy, and telling of how they hate the Right so much that they're willing to sever ties to anyone even associated with FoxNews.Valhallen wrote:How is that supposed to support your point, and how is Soros supposed to have contributed to Williams being fired?RuffDraft wrote:he donated $1.8 million dollars to NPR
He's already been in the political system; he's been toppling regimes left and right since the 80s, it's not like he's new to it. In 1994, George Soros stated: "Just right that the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire."Valhallen wrote:Questionable how? ... This indicates that Soros wants to take part in the political system, not overthrow it.RuffDraft wrote:... even if you didn't like George Bush, this is still a very questionable act
Yes, Media Matters... and MoveOn.Org, the Center for American Progress, America Coming together, TeaPartyTracker.Org, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, Think Progress by way of the Center for American Progress... He's called for/funded boycotts; intimidated sponsors; paid for an ad calling Glenn Beck an anti-semite (which I saw on TV but can no longer find on the internet) for his comments about Soros' childhood during Nazi Germany in Beck's 3-day Soros (Puppet Master) special.Valhallen wrote:Citation? I see that Soros gave a single million to Media Matters, but that's rather different from what you're accusing.RuffDraft wrote:he's also donated millions upon millions of dollars towards getting FoxNews off the air.
There's a strong difference here. Media Matters is in the business of distorting the Right's words. I see it all the time, consistently. We had a debate about Glenn Beck a little while ago where I followed a link in which MM took several of Beck's lines and completely distorted the meaning behind them (the one about Forest Fires in which they said Beck was justifying peoples' houses burning down by saying they were un-American, for instance).Valhallen wrote:And regarding the sidestep ... If you think that donating money to Media Matters is an evil stifling of free speech, what do you think about Fox News using its "news" broadcasts to advocate for the removal of funding for NPR?
Ah, you caught me. I actually was saying that.Valhallen wrote:You might not be saying it, but you're implying it. So why not say it if that's what you mean?RuffDraft wrote:... Essentially this is the same way that someone with "gallons" of liquid assets donates their money; they invest in people or organizations that match their interests.
Now, I'm not saying ... that Soros is in favor of those things (although it boggles me as to why he continues donating to them if that's the case).
I think we can skip this one, as my other points seem to cover it.Valhallen wrote:Do you want me to critique that, or do you want to make points yourself?RuffDraft wrote:He may be the biggest political fat cat of all time.
All right, I'll give you that. Not that I really give two shits about Martha Stewart anyway...Valhallen wrote:I didn't say it was good. ... The problems come from the systemic incentives that arise for subverting efficient market operation, like what you said. However, Martha Stewart didn't do something like that. Rather, she sold her stock in a pharmaceutical company whose new drug had been rejected, before that announcement was made public. Like I said, eminently rational and obvious if not for the regulations preventing it. Hence not sinister, devious, or in the same league as murder or conspiracy to overthrow a government.RuffDraft wrote:... if insider trading weren't illegal, then what would stop someone from artificially inflating the price of his own stock to a certain point, selling his own stock, and then let his stock drop back down abruptly, then remove all evidence of fraud?
Real traders are out there on the Wall Street floor buying and selling in real time using whatever information they can gather and attempting to predict which way the markets will go based on a professional understanding of trend and analysis. I'm no expert but that seems a little different than someone taking the time to surf the internet and do their own research, then logging on to Etrade and punching up an order, or calling their broker and issuing a trade.Valhallen wrote:Rather, that's the idea behind stock trading in general. You realize that real traders do not have perfect information and infinitely powerful number crunchers, right?RuffDraft wrote:The idea behind insider trading is that you use advance knowledge to gain an advantage over those who don't have that knowledge and then profit off of it while others lose money. So how is that anything less than wrong?
Yeah, now. I'm talking about 1992. And sure it wasn't completely destroyed, I should have been clear that that wasn't what I was saying. It was severely damaged. A loss of 3.3 billion Pounds to the economy, even now, would be catastrophic.Valhallen wrote:The UK is the 6th largest national economy at ~$2.3 trillion; it was hardly destroyed.RuffDraft wrote:What's not immoral about profiting off the destruction of a country's economy?Valhallen wrote:... did he do anything ... obviously immoral?
My criticism is that George Soros is a vulture. Actually, scratch that; it's an insult to the vulture.Valhallen wrote:As I explained earlier, the Pound fell because of the economic situation - Soros just profited off of it. It's kind of like a guy who cashes his child's college fund and throws the money in the street. It's not good for the guy or his kid, but you might as well pick it up before it blows away. Are you suggesting that the UK wouldn't have had economic troubles if Soros hadn't taken advantage of bad policy? And no, I don't have a particular problem with that. Free market and such. Is your remaining criticism of Soros here that he was cold hearted?
...I'm not sure how to interpret that. Is he saying that governments shouldn't listen to people like him? And is he saying that speculators shouldn't be able to exploit the system? In which case I agree, but it makes me angry to think that George Soros is saying this.Valhallen wrote:I'd like to hear your explanation for why you think that that's justified. You might find this interesting. I agree with Soros's statement there that "the responsibility doesn't belong to speculators but to the authorities. The authorities should decide how markets should function."RuffDraft wrote:... Economic War Criminal.
(Text shrunk only to save space)Okay, so if I understand your point, it is that Beck's thesis is flawed because of his omission or commission of certain bias. The part about this that I find off is--forgive me if my assumption is wrong--that you probably have not fully researched the assertions he makes, nor reviewed his sources, which are posted on his website and on TheBlaze.com. Many of his sources are directly from Soros' own books, biographies, or spoken word. Even as such, I don't expect you to go through all of them (something like 14 pages worth of sources). And I understand what you're saying about bias of omission versus commission... but in all seriousness, when he's making a special on George Soros with the intention of bringing his words to light, since most people probably don't even know who George Soros is, and then telling his viewers not to take anything that he says as accepted truth but to "do your own research," and in telling his viewers to reverify all the sources that he has posted to the internet, would you not say he's encouraging his audience to make an informed opinion based on their own perception of facts? Sure, Beck might appear biased in claiming that George Soros is an evil, conspiratorial rich dood, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. That's the point I'm trying to make here. If you want to believe that George Soros is not evil, that's your right. Glenn Beck can't make you believe anything. Facts should speak for themselves.Valhallen wrote:Sure. A stopped clock is right twice a day, as the saying goes. The clock is biased, as it always displays a particular time regardless of what time it actually is. However, while that does make it an unreliable source of information about the time, it doesn't prevent it from occasionally being right.RuffDraft wrote:I'm sorry, but I fail to see the correlation between being right and being biased. Could you perhaps give an example?
In the context of media, suppose that Media Organization X wants to advocate Political Position Y. Organization X could do that with bias of omission, where they don't report on negative aspects of Position Y and don't report on positive aspects of alternatives, never actually lying about particular details, but still presenting a warped view of reality to their consumers. Position Y may indeed have the positive attributes as reported, so Organization X is right about that, but the bias remains.
Stronger than that is a bias of commission, where Organization X makes false or unjustified statements that favor Position Y and disfavor alternatives. This is more blatant and easier to identify as bias than omission because fact checking shows what's wrong with it.
When Beck says that Soros talked about a "New World Order" and an "orderly decline of the Dollar" he is displaying a bias of omission, as while Soros has talked about those things, the context and Soros's actual meaning is omitted. Beck then displays bias of commission when he says that Soros's aforementioned statements mean that Soros wants to overthrow the United States etc., because the omitted context shows that that's clearly not what Soros was talking about. Beck's claim that stem cell research is eugenics (which you defended in the other thread, which petered out) also displays bias of commission.
While I see what you're saying, it seems like your point branches over two different arguments. You say that we should check that it's representative as a whole, but claim that Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are representative of that whole? They each only get an hour time slot during a normal day (3 hours out of what, 16 hours beginning with Fox And Friends?), and they're analyzing chunks of the news. It doesn't seem to me that that's an adequate representation of the whole. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's the norm. Football is popular but when I step outside my house I don't see thousands of people sacking one another.Valhallen wrote:My point here was that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, the ones most known for vilifying people they disagree with, are also the most popular. I was implying that, if you're going to make a point about what you see going on, you should check that it is representative of the whole.RuffDraft wrote:Which means that although the claim is that it's biased, it still gets the top ratings?Valhallen wrote:The most popular star O'Reilley, Hannity, and Beck, and drew about as many viewers as the other six combined.
As I said it was a sort of round-table discussion in which everyone was permitted to speak freely. Someone got impatient and started talking over the other side. Impatience being a non-partisan emotion, it's not something to blame the whole of either party for. That said, yes the Liberal did get his whole point out.Valhallen wrote:... Now, why was the Conservative permitted to talk over the Liberal, and did the Liberal eventually get his whole point out?
My position hasn't changed. Yours?Valhallen wrote:So, to check on where we are, what do you think Soros is up to, given the discussion so far?
Tricky situation. On one hand, I dislike the right, and I'm not totally opposed to Socialism, or some of those other things.
On the other hand, if there's one thing I hate, it's rich, shadowy people trying to control society. Or limit free speech. Bastards. Man, wish people would keep life simple.
NeoWarrior7 wrote:I support a Star Trek esque system, though that really needs Replicators to work well.
icha_icha_paradise wrote:I think BR is talking about the theoretical of communism and Ruff is talking about how it actually gets applied anyway?
BeeAre wrote:Everything you just said is just not what the philosophy of communism is. Literally. Like, I'm not trying to be mean, and I don't think you're attacking me: you're just... wrong. o_o
If the state becomes overwhelmingly powerful, then that Communism failed
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests