Sorry for the long wait for my reply. I've had to work, be a tourist, explore the landscape, hang out with friends and do other stuff that need not be mentioned. In short, I've been lazy
Now... full quoting would be much too large of a post, so I'm going to be somewhat selective. I hope this won't cause any confusion.
Valhallen wrote:For the following, consider that in 2010, the world GDP was ~$62 trillion, and the US GDP was ~$14.5 trillion.
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.
RuffDraft wrote: something like 500 organizations.
... 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.
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).
By the way, if you clicked the link for the Velvet Revolution above and don't see any connection to Soros, look at who was elected as President: Veclav Havel. Relevance? This
. Soros' own book ("Opening the Soviet System"), on his own website (http://www.osi.hu
), detailing how he played a hand in the Revolution. Search for Havel, and you'll find how Soros was there when they "all agreed that it was imperative to have Vaclav Havel elected president." Which means that he thinks that Havel would be a good leader. As for Vaclav Havel himself, that's an argument for another time. Next...
RuffDraft wrote:He owns the Open Society Institute
What does it do advance Soros's supposed agenda?
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.
RuffDraft wrote:he has donated money to the founding members of the Weather Underground
Make the connection. Who did Soros give money to, who was responsible for the Days of Rage, and what influence did Soros have?
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.
But as to the Days of Rage, I should have been clearer; I don't think Soros had any part of it; however, who better to fund/employ if you're trying to plot a revolution or change a regime than those who have first-hand knowledge of how to do it? They weren't successful then
, but people tend to learn from their mistakes, especially if their backer is a billionaire
succeeded in other countries. And before you comment, I realize that this is weak by itself; all will be explained at the end, after I answer your other points.
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.
What do you think would happen if no one caught them doing this? They'd have a ton of fake voters to vote however they wanted in whatever election cycle they wanted. So now the question becomes: how many now-registered voters are real, and how many are bots
Valhallen wrote:How does this implicate the management of ACORN in political shenanigans, let alone Soros?
Well on the matter of how it implicates ACORN, I have no hard evidence.
Oh wait, there's the fact that they hired 9 people who THEY KNEW were in prison for Identity Theft
; and the fact that an investigation found that about 48% of their registration forms were falsified
; Marcel Reid, a former ACORN board member, removed last year for demaning an audit of their books, said, "Acorn has been hijacked by a power-hungry clique that has its own political and personal agendas. We are fighting to take back the group."
I guess there is some hard evidence... I'll get to Soros in a minute.
RuffDraft wrote:to the Tides Foundation ... wrote the original, wasteful $700 billion stimulus
How do we know that, and what influence did Soros have in that or other Tides Foundation activities?
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.
The Apollo Alliance (AA for short) wrote the origninal stimulus package, which they called the Apollo Economic Recovery Act
. This, only about a week after Pres. Obama called for a "big stimulus package," almost as if they had it prepared beforehand. So the Obama Admin. took it and it became the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, with some minor changes (mostly in the number of billions being spent) to the original. Not long after, Alcoholics Anonymous--er, Apollo Alliance
, sorry--was lauding the bill's for its total awesomeness in the green job sector. Can I interest you in a jar of Self-Gratification?
The link for George Soros and the Tides Foundation is just as transparent. First of all, Tides is basically a money-laundering firm
. According to what I can find
, it's been used for: radical environmentalist groups; anti-firearm ownership movements; anti-war movements; anti-free trade campaigns; abolishment of the death penalty; government-funded abortion-on-demand; the list goes on.
Halfway down that link is a section detailing how OSI (George Soros) has donated money to the Tides Foundation. The link also talks about the Shadow Party
, which I will get to in a moment. But for now, keep scrolling and look a little further and see how many organizations are listed as being funded through the Tides Foundation. It's all over the place. There's the Children's Defense Fund, which describes itself as a "child advocacy" group, but then there's Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US! I don't see a single right-wing organization here (which is a relief, at least to me), although I do see a lot of organizations that are funded by George Soros in this list, such as CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
). Tides truly does not care where its money comes from as long as it receives its 8% fee.
And look--Tides also receives money from the Federal Government. Isn't it great that our tax dollars are being used to fund such (a) charitable(?) organization(s)?
RuffDraft wrote:he donated $1.8 million dollars to NPR
How is that supposed to support your point, and how is Soros supposed to have contributed to Williams being fired?
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.
Soros' involvement is more along the lines of giving private
funds to a public
entity for the sole purpose of "hiring new journalists." This might seem small, but it does come in to play, as I will soon illustrate.
RuffDraft wrote:... even if you didn't like George Bush, this is still a very questionable act
Questionable how? ... This indicates that Soros wants to take part in the political system, not overthrow it.
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."
You really think it's good for someone like Soros--a wealthy businessman and one who has a history of aiding in the overthrow of various governments and who has shown a vested interest in currency devaluation--should have any
say in how our country is run?
RuffDraft wrote:he's also donated millions upon millions of dollars towards getting FoxNews off the air.
Citation? I see that Soros gave a single million to Media Matters, but that's rather different from what you're accusing.
Yes, Media Matters... and MoveOn.Org, the Center for American Progress, America Coming together
, 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.
Soros is so afraid of people calling him on his devious acts and hypocrisy that he had a legal team go to Canada to intimidate a blogger named Kathy Shaidle
after she posted an essay he apparently didn't like. How exactly does an American citizen get off telling Canadian bloggers they can't talk badly about them? If Kathy Shaidle had said "Soros is a great man who wants to create a global economy and bring America to its knees" do you think she would have been sued by Soros for defamation?
Now, I know you're probably looking at some of those links above and saying "the organizations you cited received funds during 2004 to remove Bush from office, not rally against Fox News." And yet these are organizations that Soros still
donates money to. They have a message that he believes in and have been known for being heavly anti-Republican/Conservative/Fox News/etc. If Soros believed they weren't doing what he thought they should be doing, he'd stop donating money to them, guaranteed.
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?
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).
I've never seen Media Matters issue a retraction on anything they've ever said about anyone on the Right. I don't claim to be a Media Matters expert of course, but when I pull up one of their web pages, I almost always see them laud the Left and revile the Right; and even on ones from years ago, I haven't seen a single apology on anything they've gotten wrong. Many
of the pages
are inflammatory, defamatory and often outright derogatory, and yet somehow they're protected from legal action, unlike in the above Canada incident. (BTW, If you wish to debate the presumptions by MediaMatters in the above links, we should finish with this discussion first, I think. A new debate can be started later.)
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).
You might not be saying it, but you're implying it. So why not say it if that's what you mean?
Ah, you caught me. I actually was
saying that.ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS ! ! !
All right, back to the action.
Do you want me to critique that, or do you want to make points yourself?
I think we can skip this one, as my other points seem to cover it.
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?
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.
All right, I'll give you that. Not that I really give two shits about Martha Stewart anyway...
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?
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?
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: RuffDraft wrote:
Valhallen wrote:... did he do anything ... obviously immoral?
What's not immoral about profiting off the destruction of a country's economy?
The UK is the 6th largest national economy at ~$2.3 trillion; it was hardly destroyed.
. 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.
Let's evaluate the exchange rates. According to Stlouisfed.org
, in August of 1992, the Pound peaked at 1.9434 (USD). By October, it was down to 1.6529. That's a horrendous loss, especially in such a short time frame. They started to recover in February of '93, but only after the Pound fell to 1.4395, and it didn't get up to the 1.9000s from before Black Wednesday until 2004.
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?
My criticism is that George Soros is a vulture
. Actually, scratch that; it's an insult to the vulture.
Your analogy of the child's college fund is a bit off. In your example, the father is willfully discarding his child's college fund and someone else is taking the money. Black Wednesday occurred because Europe was trying to prevent its currency from massive devaluation while participating in the ERM, to which the whole purpose was as a precursor to the Euro. At the sheer massive currency short-selling of Soros and his associates, the government could not act quickly enough or strongly enough to prevent the damage from being done. Is it any coincidence that Soros profits off the instability of the Pound when Europe is trying to create a singular currency, and is now saying we need a global economy?
And sure, the UK's problems probably would have still existed if Soros were never involved, but how does that excuse him for capitalizing from it?
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."
...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.
And on the Malaysian ex-Premier's words, his original words seem pretty inflammatory on their own, it kinda makes sense for the ex-Premier to apologize. Why would I find that interesting? How does it relate to Thailand?
As to why the above is justified, I think it has something in part to do with the fact that Soros bragged about his methods of speculation and profit off of Thailand's currency devaluation. Thailand can hold whatever opinion of him they desire.
(Text shrunk only to save space)
RuffDraft wrote:I'm sorry, but I fail to see the correlation between being right and being biased. Could you perhaps give an example?
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.
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.
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: RuffDraft wrote:
Valhallen wrote:The most popular star O'Reilley, Hannity, and Beck, and drew about as many viewers as the other six combined.
Which means that although the claim is that it's biased, it still gets the top ratings?
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.
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
Valhallen wrote:... Now, why was the Conservative permitted to talk over the Liberal, and did the Liberal eventually get his whole point out?
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.
This is where I answer all the points I said I would get to later. I'll start with Soros' own Five Step Plan to overthrow regimes. The five steps are as follows:
1) Form a Shadow Government
. This involves supplanting roots in the governmental system in the form of charitable organizations and "advocacy" groups that sound good but are really a front for creating widespread fellowship towards his true cause. I mentioned the OSI and Tides links, which allows him to give money to any organization he deems fit. And remember who is at the head of OSI? Bill Ayers
, former Weather Underground co-founder. OSI is his "charitable arm" and consistently gives money to radical leftist groups
all across America.
2) Control the Airways
. Again, OSI comes in to play, having donated 1.8 million to NPR; a million to Media Matters; another million went to TeaPartyTracker.org; then we have Think Progress; the Huffington Post Investigation Fund; MoveOn.org. He's sent funds to hundreds of left-wing journalist organizations, and, as I have mentioned, even bullies other countries (Canada; read above) into silencing those that speak against him.
In funding all these news organizations and attempting to boycott FoxNews and intimidate sponsors, and in trying to discredit those organizations who he is against or vice versa, he is attempting to control the airwaves. Do you recall that Free Press
(another organization funded by Soros) has been pushing a concept known as "Net Neutrality
," which is basically a movement towards government regulation of the internet. If they got this passed, it would mean, among other things, that the government would be able to regulate that which may be posted to any internet site.
3) Destabilize the State
. This involves creating dissent against the government or its assets. Has he done that? I've shown how Tides is basically a money-laundering firm. One thing that I haven't mentioned is the Institute for Policy Studies
, which seems to advocate bypassing the constitution
, and supports anti-American causes around the world. Add to that the current inflation and growing economic uncertainty that are causing prices to rise (I don't even need to link to any websites, just look at gas and food prices lately) and the job market to decline. We see major corporations (including banks) getting government bailouts although the companies are failing. It's no wonder people don't trust the government.
4) Provoke an Election Crisis
. This involves creating mistrust or dissent during an election and creating a case for voting fraud--or intentionally committing fraud in an obvious way so that it casts a suspicious light on the party involved. Remember the evidence I presented on ACORN; additionally, remember that during the last election there were somewhere in the ballpark of a quintillion allegations of fraud
by both parties, and by third-party groups
. This includes a case in Connecticut (though by no means the only case) in which, two days after Election Day, a bag of Democratic votes were "found"
and Democrats demanded a recount. And let's not forget the possibilities of illegal immigrants being allowed to vote
without proof of American citizenship. And while very little of this actually points to Soros, he doesn't expressly have to have his hand in it if he knows it's going to happen anyway; he just has to figure out how to capitalize off it (much like Currency Devaluation).
5) Finally, Take Power
. Primarily, this is done by leaders of OSI and Tides-funded groups. You know Van Jones, the Green Job Czar, as people were wont to call him? He is a Communist, and had a brief stint as one of Pres. Obama's aids, from March to September 2009. Where does Soros come in? In 2006 and 2007, he funded the Ella Baker Center
, headed at the time by Van Jones, who not long after emerged as a senior member of the Center for American Progress, funded largely by Soros.
And speaking of Pres. Obama... did you know that he is also a large recipient of Soros' money? Much of Obama's senatorial and presidential
campaigns were funded by Soros. Not to mention that Soros has been to the White house several times, personally meeting and conferencing with Obama and his top aides.
I could go and find more people who have connections to Soros and bring up every single one of them... but this entire post has gone on far too long, and besides, isn't that enough?
Valhallen wrote:So, to check on where we are, what do you think Soros is up to, given the discussion so far?
My position hasn't changed. Yours?
Wow... awesome... that's the most... research... I've ever.. [Collapses due to information overload]