this is the title of book by George Soros I came accross recently:

The Bubble of American Supremacy: Correcting the Misuse of American Power

guy makes sens I think. he knows on personal hide all the worngs of Nazis and Commies and of Bush's "croies" (nice word! ) .... AND reportedly he not only talks about democracy - but make real efforts to make it real in the world:



well, I don't know what others here think or would say about it or what he is talking about - but for me at leat it is good to know that there are people who are straightforward and direct, while they don't need to be with their wealth.

yeah, I know he was blamed for currency crisis in Asia and Russia, and acused of hypocracy by some. however his insights seems to bea more appealing than hysteria blown more and more out of proportions by supposedly world leaders....


well, surely he is definetely better than Bush at least in one regard - he has written quite a few books, hismelf I have no doubt - while I sincerely do doubt that Bush can even concive just one. other few his books are also quite relevent to modern world: Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism and George Soros on Globalization - as I said at least can make a good read and contemplate about, unlike those things Bush does or can possibly say.

George Soros is a left wing pundit. He isn't particuarly unintelligent, he is simply a pundit. He makes it his business to show an extremely one sided view of the world, thats what pundits do.

That's disgraceful! You mean to say he expresses his opinions? How dare he!?!

Hmmm.

Explain what I said about him that was inflammatory or implied I have any particular dislike for him.

That's ok Ben, you can be honest. I have a particular dislike for him, because he is a hypocrite. He used his powers of Market Liberalism, and now wishes to promite his Collectivist agenda. Kind of reminds me of another Ted Turner. Both are arrogant egotists. and guess where they intellectually call home?

there! how is that Chuck?

OK. It's not that hard to grasp. What you did...instead of addressing the substance of Mr. Soros' remarks you chose to go the ad hominem route (as usual) and dismissed him as a one-sided 'pundit'. Hence my sarcastic response.

Nobody here really expects the level of debate to rise much above the old 'attack the messenger' stuff but for some of us old hands it gets a trifle tedious. If you want serious feedback try to tighten up your game OK?

And by golly I see Johnny has taken exactly the same approach with Mr. Soros! Calling him an arrogant egotist and not a word about his form of capitalism. Very sad really and quite out of character for Johnny. It is so discouraging for those of us who want to discuss serious issues to be constantly wading through all the irrelevant personal attacks.

Woww,

Forget about a debate from Benny-T, you have to provide 100% proof of all of your posts. If you say the world is round, right wing lunatic Benny-T and jumpin johnny L. want to see a picture of it signed by FOXnews!

George Soros disgusts me because he made his money off of hurting other countries' economies. BUT, I recognize that we must debate his ideas, not his character.

For something to debate, I have chosen this. This is his last speech for the 2004 election as to why America shouldn't elect Bush. Let's debate.

Wrong

He votes to regain the good graces of the French, Germans, Russians, etc who are all looking out for themselves...But of course, the Russians wont let him back in their country after he almost single-handedly destroyed their currency. (I know that's personal, but it fit so well...)

I think he forgot about the other 17 resolutions...He is wrong.

There was no strong stand, and Saddam wasn't cooperating with inspections. How many times did we say it was his job to show us what he did with the weapons we knew he had from previous inspections. He didn't, and didn't let us interview his scientists for a veryyyy long time, if at all. Also, the NY Times reported that he has WMD in 2003 right before we invaded. The times suggests that it may have been sent to Syria. Who knows?

Eh, this should be enough. For those who also would like to debate, you can respond to these, or post policies that he supports that you do as well. I would RATHER the latter because we have already debated many of these topics before.

Razin, My friend, it seems George Soros tried to Correct the Misuse of American Power with his money on the 2000 and 2004 elections spending 24 million in just this last election.

Seems, most of American's disagree with him and his ideas.

Plus he has been indicted and convicted in France for insider trading. He has also been alleged by the international task forces on money laundering via his Quantum Fund which is registered in Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles, a Caribbean tax haven as being a source for vast amounts of money laundering activities from illicit sources.


George Soros
Contributions to 527 Committees

2004 Election Cycle
Recipient Total Contributions

Joint Victory Campaign 2004 $12,050,000
America Coming Together $7,500,000
MoveOn.org $2,500,000
Democrats 2000 $325,000
Young Democrats of America $325,000
The Real Economy Group $300,000
Campaign for America's Future $300,000
Safer Together 04 $150,000
Main Street Individual Fund $0


If Martha went to jail for $ 256,000, then this Hungarian socialist anti-capitalist who would be nothing if he got his wish and capitalism did not exist, should as well don’t you think?

That is all !

That's funny. You basically just said that you will refuse to join in a debate where you are asked to back up assertions that you make. For the record, I don't watch Fox News. I feel it has an unfair Right-Wing Bias.

To C Woww, I wasn't challenging the validity of anything Soros said. Things said by pundits, whether they be left or right, aren't of interest to me. Being pundits, I know it is their business to present a one-sided view of the world, and I would rather avoid that. I would rather take the facts and form my own conclusions. Soros is entitled to think whatever he wants. On the second issue, It is I that usually goes the ad hominem route? I seem to remember you posting three posts about anyone on the political right being a cheerleader, each of them consisting of no more than a few lines, and none of them containing a single drop of substance. Those in glass houses shoudln't throw stones.

To John L, I don't know enough about Soros to have a personal opinion on the man.

I think Mr. Soros refers to himself as a financier and a philanthropist. What makes him a pundit?

Pundit in contemporary English refers to an expert or opinion-leader, particulary in the field of political analysis. You make it sound like an insult. Since punditry requires no qualifications, the term would cover everyone who posts here I would think including yourself. How is your view more (or less) one-sided than anyone elses?

"Those in glass houses shoudln't throw stones." That is precisely what you do. You just did it again. Telling me that I do something does not negate the fact that you do it. It is merely an attempt to deflect the charge of going the ad hominem route. You also put words into people's mouths.

Where did I say 'anyone on the political right is a cheerleader?'

And who decides what is substantial and what is not? Who makes the judgment? Is the definition of substance arrived at by consensus or is there a set of guidelines? What constitutes substance? Does a substantial post have to consist of a certain number of words, facts and phrases? Does anything less than the requisite quota of approved substance automatically become irrelevant?

Who decides what is relevant and what is not?

Obviously not you Chuck. Relevance and Moral Reletivity are two different things, as you should know.

A pundit, coloquially, now refers to a spin-doctor. That's what Soros is. He doesn't particuarly try to hide it.

You made multiple jokes implying that the political right-wingers on this board were cheerleaders. Shall I dig up the quotes? I would hope you would have more respectability than to tell a bald-faced lie.

Of course I use ad hominems. We both do. Don't whine about me doing, it, I don't whine about you doing it. Not unless you use only ad hominems and no points that is.

Why is who decides what is substantial relevant to this conversation? I didn't claim that what Soros said wasn't substantial. I claimed that I prefer to glean my facts from those who do not have a political agenda, whatever that agenda may be. George Soros had, before the 2004 elections, a declared political agenda of unseating George W Bush from the white house.

So now a pundit is a spin-doctor. Colloquially of course. Where do you get this stuff? A pundit is a pundit and a spin-doctor is a spin-doctor. I'm not sure that George Soros is either....no more than anyone else with access to the media. At what point does opinion become spin? The lines are so blurred these days I doubt if anyone is sure anymore which is why we try to keep the terms separate. A pundit is a pundit. A spin doctor is a spin-doctor.

Sure I think some of you are cheerleaders.....or you certainly act like cheerleaders. Would you like me to dig up your VICTORY! post. But I did not say 'anyone on the political right is a cheerleader'. You said that.

George soros made no secret of the fact that he didn't want Bush elected. So what? I was referring to your tactic of accusing people of not posting anything substantial. As if you are the judge of what is substantial and what isn't. The forum guidelines are pretty clear. Posting the occasional flippant remark is OK. Calling people morons isn't.

I accuse people of not posting anything substantial, when they post random assertions without anything to back them up.

Both OsManli and yourself do this quite a bit. If you didn't do it so much, I wouldn't be pointing it out so much.

Exactly, George Soros made no secret of the fact that he didn't want Bush reelected. I then said that I prefer not to draw my conclusions from those who have pre-set agendas. Instead I prefer taking the facts and forming my own conclusions. I didn't say he was insubstantial. Unlike you, he has sources and evidence for the statements he makes. I didn't attack him, I noted that he has a pre-set agenda, and then stated that I prefer not to draw my conclusions based on info from people with agendas. I don't watch Fox News, and I don't read Ann Coulter for the same reasons I don't read Soros.

Calling people morons isn't okay? Who is the judge of that? Is it you?

You're hypocrisy reaches ever expanding heights.

I think that the 1st definition for Pundit is the most applicable to the discussion.

It appears to me to be semantics.

pun·dit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pndt)
n.
1. A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
2. A learned person.
3. Hinduism. Variant of pandit.

pan·dit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pndt) or pun·dit (pn-)
n.
1. A Brahman scholar or learned man.
2. Used as a title of respect for a learned man in India

spin doctor n. Slang
A person who publicizes favorable interpretations of the words and actions of a public figure, especially a politican.

spin doctor

An individual charged with getting others to interpret a statement or event from a particular viewpoint, as in Charlie is the governor's spin doctor. This term, born about 1980 along with spin control, uses doctor in the colloquial sense of "one who repairs something."

Spin Doctor n :
a public relations person who tries to forestall negative publicity by publicizing a favorable interpretation of the words or actions of a company or political party or famous person; "his title is Director of Communications but he is just a spin doctor" [syn: spinmeister]

I can't speak for Osmanli. It seems he likes to post random assertions that you don't agree with so rather than confront the assertions you accuse him of not backing them up. That argument is between you and him. Please leave me out of it.

If you can show me an example of an unsubstantiated random assertion posted by me I will take another look.

The Soros business is becoming very boring but I still disagree about pundits being spin doctors. Bob Novaks for instance is my idea of a pundit. Ari Fleischer is a spin doctor.

Calling people 'morons' is against the board rules I think. Perhaps a moderator can confirm that. It may also be clinically inaccurate. Either way it is sophomoric and detracts from a persons argument. Again show me a case where I have stooped to calling other posters names (likening people to cheerleaders is more of an analogy than an insult in my opinion. I don't suppose for one moment you wave pom-poms and wear a cute skirt.)

My hypocrisy level remains fairly constant I think but that again is just my opinion. My sarcasm level does tend to fluctuate a lot.

"Soros' foreign expertise comes from the $500 million he spends every year..."

"...surely he is definetely better than Bush at least in one regard - he has written quite a few books"


I dont think spending money leads to expertise or that authorship of books is evidence of one being "better" at anything other than writing books. MARK

Calling other posters a cheerleader is an clear insult. The statement was clearly meant to provoke said posters.

anyway, so far nobody succeded to convince me otherwsie from my original opinion - that Soros makes more sense than Bush; and here I can add perhaps - than quite a few members here.

ustrader, my friend - I'm aware he spend a lot of money on attempting to influence Bush's failure in elections. so, what? at least he was straightforward about it. and I think many would perfer if Bush would loose - although it is not sure if Kerry would be better. byut that is another subject - that somehow only Bush or Kerry were the top runners.... (pity America )

Oh I don't know. I think you're nitpicking. Some people would be quite proud of being called cheerleaders. Can't see anyone being happy about being called a moron though.

This whole subject has just become pointless and stupid. Any mods around to close it?

I agree. I can't understand why you kept it alive as long as you did.

Razin, I think Soros makes more sense to you, but only because you are like-minded. He says nothing different from the 100s of 1000s of other democrats/socialists in the country.

Debating his ideas is where it should be at. Sadly no one took me up on it. No biggy; we debate all of his ideas daily in other threads.

Basically, I feel like this post just points out someone you agree with and says: "Hey, this guy is smart and he gets it!" Well great, I'm glad you think so.

I happen to think Bush if fairly intelligent because I agree with him on many things. It doesn't actually make him any smarter or better than the next guy.


Bush wasn't banned from a country for destroying its economy though...

hello, DKWARD!

should I take it as personal attack - your words that I like him coz he I'm similalrly minded? coz it is evident from your earlier post here that he disgusts you. not hard to make logical connection to your attitude towards those whom you consider similalry minded.

this is typical fallacy in argument: I don't agree with guy coz he disgusts me.... and you too can't be right coz u r similarly minded.

pls be reasonable and address the issue without making it personal.

and here it is: American Supremacy so fanfared around the world, although obvious, is not entirely moral. which may (and in fact DOES) make some or many disgusted BTW - using your own language.

Soros points this out. he doesn't say it shouldn't be a leader - but only that there are moral responsibilities which accompany leadership.

admited by officials, America has supported practically open terrorism, as it is called now, for example in Nicaragua and few other countries - I saw once a program by BBC called something like "State sponsored terrorism" - where former CIA guy has honestly admited and explained that.

in fact even the so called economic embargo for Iraq, which was what - min 10 years or more? - by many countries was considered as one of forms of such state supported terrorism. and many countries in Europe urged to end it - coz there were many facts that it definetely hurts economy of Iraq, and ordinary, simple people there like children, women, olderly, were simply suffering due to lack of medical treatments and nutrition etc. these facts were well publicised in the media in Russia for example - sorry, I don't read French or Italian or German, but I bet there were such reports there as well.

and can be given many other facts - like elsewhere I've mentioned about America standing by in the Bay of Bengal while West Pakistanis were rampaging through Bangladesh, slaughtering and raping, wide scale genocide.... why they were there? to ensure Pakistanis success. don't belive me? go to either India or Bangladesh and talk to people there - those memories are fresh....

so, to all your arguments can be given exactly same.

but that's not the point. the point is - how to make that American Supremacy real and positive, constructive? Soros has suggested some ideas - like moral capitalism and fair market, as well as international cooperation. I don't recall all exact terms he used. but definetely those are much more relevent to moods of many peoples in the world than Bush's agenda ....

It is in a man’ s devotion and blind ambition of admiration for others or another that enlightens one, in part, as to the void that is his lack of fanaticism of admiration and adoration as to the essence of his own identity and character that gives creed to the measure of his self evaluated worth.

That is all!

wow!

I always admire your eloquence, ustrader ! truly, u r the best orator here on bearpit !

I wonder though - do u yourself at least sometimes, not to speak always, trouble to follow the "flight of thought" of yours ? or u simply find pleasure in putting flowery words together? not a big vice if so.... rather - vanity - MY DEAR SIR !

THAT IS ALL !

Razin: Hello to you as well.

My intent was not to attack you personally. In fact, you do not disgust me at all. I think you have me wrong if you think I'm smart enough to mean more than I'm saying.

My point was, simply, that I was unsure of what we should debate in this topic. You stated that Soros makes sense to you. I responded that he doesn't make sense to me. Yes, also that he disgusts me. Not his ideas, but he himself and how he made his money.

About the sanctions in Iraq: Our sanctions were just. It was a pity that he decided that, rather than spend what money he had on his people, he would spend it on his palaces and his weapons programs. Actually, he was smart. He knew that the world would see the horrible healthcare, and then blame the sanctions. He still had money to spend, he spent it on himself. By the time the Oil-for-Food program came along, he was almost bankrupt and beaten. However, the UN saved his terrible regime at the last second. Way to go UN! Always there to help a dictator in distress.

MY DEAR SIR, It is incomprehensible to me the exact meaning of your words "flight of thought" of yours? or u simply find pleasure in putting flowery words together?

There is an incongruence in the logic of one who redoubts in intellect another’s oratorical capable, while at the same time, in opposition, of contrasting rational, implies in unmeritorious logic, a lack of meaning in that same person's narration whom they proclaim as having am expressed literate skill.

My response to this incongruence of rational as to what is or is not literate in or out of your persepctuive is a simple quote –

It is slavery, not to speak one’s thought – Euripides.


I am, as well, bemused at the implied vanity as being somehow being perversely narcissistic as opposed as to being the altruistic expressionist of ones ideas as you have expressly said, be they, understandable or not , be they disagreeable or agreeable to you or any reader thereof.

I have but two thoughts as to your obvious objectionable concern for my expressiveness on this forum.

Men willingly believe what they wish –Gaius Julius Caesar


Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings -- that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide. – Budda

That is all!