MoveOn, Hitler and Bush: Hooo, boy!

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by manhattan *
…at least to agree spyware is bad and unsolicited sound ads are bad? I mean, that’s up there with “puppies are cute” in terms of being non-controversial. Sheesh!..

I am authorized, on behalf of the SDMB Revolutionary Front Provisional (Trotskyist), to express our complete solidarity with the line taken by Comrade Manhattan.

Yours in revolution,
e.
Improvisational Political Commissar, SDMB Cadre

[minty_green]

I thought Scaife was a Nazi?

[minty_green]

More seriously, though . . . There’s a big difference between Soros and Scaife, in that Scaife doesn’t bother to tell anyone what the hell he is or what he believes. He doesn’t give interviews, he doesn’t write books . . . he just writes checks that support conservative candidates and causes. If the guy ran his mouth as much as Soros, maybe we’d have good reason to conclude that he’s not a Republican. But going on Soros’ own statements, I’m quite certain that he’s a poor fit for the Democratic party, though obviously a better fit than he would be in the GOP.

[Daoloth]

*Originally posted by dropzone *
**Part of the problem is that Hitler gave all Fascists a bad name. Had we only Mussolini and Franco to compare Bush with…

d&r **

Yeah, it’s not like either of them ever gassed anyone or had mass graves.

:rolleyes:

[Scylla]

Minty Green:

But going on Soros’ own statements, I’m quite certain that he’s a poor fit for the Democratic party,

What statements might these be?

[minty_green]

Follow the links above, for a start. Then google up the rest your own damn self.

[Scylla]

Minty:

Here’s a good Soros philosophy piece, printed in the Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm

Let’s see:

-Doesn’t like Apartheid
-Likes “open societies.”
-Doesn’t like “Laissez Faire” capitalismwhich he claims creates huge inequalities and promotes Social darwinism
-Thinks it makes states with no principles, only interests
-Thinks man is fallible

This is from the National Republica Senatorial Campaign:

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:zYpFvrP8hh4J:www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/daschle_watch/soros_background.pdf+Is+george+Soros+a+Democrat&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

“Soros Heavily Financed Drug Legalization Efforts For Medical Marijuana In Arizona And California”

“Soros Called The War On Drugs A “Fantasy” And More Harmful Than Drugs Themselves.”

“Soros Paid $18,000 To Dine With The Clintons. “Thirty couples have paid $18,000 each to dine with the Clintons at the home of investment banker Bruce Wasserstein. Among the social heavyweights gracing a weekend billed as ‘the most turbo-charged political benefit in Hamptons history’ are Steven Spielberg, Robert De Niro, Billy Joel and International Financier George Soros.”

“George Soros Has Repeatedly Attacked President Bush”

“As The Key Backer Of America Coming Together (ACT), Soros Said President Bush Was Leading America In The Wrong Direction. “‘”

“Soros Also Committed $5 Million To MoveOn.org, A Liberal Activist Group”

“Since 1991, George Soros Has Contributed Nearly $600,000 To Democrat Campaigns, Leadership PACs, And State And National Party Committees”

“Nearly $500,000 Has Gone To National Democrat Party Committees”

“Soros Has Given The Maximum Contribution To The Democrat Presidential Campaigns Of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, And Bob Graham”

“Soros Has Given To Several Leading Democrat Senators, Including Hillary Clinton, Jon Corzine, Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Charles Schumer And Paul Wellstone”

" Soros Gave $5,000 to House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Leadership PAC"

So, it seems to me that the assertion that Soros isn’t really a Democrat but just contributing to Democrats to get Bush out of the White House does not stand up to scrutiny. Soros has been a contributor and supporter of Democrats long before Bush was in the White House.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Follow the links above, for a start. Then google up the rest your own damn self. **

I just did. You need to support your own statements, no matter how stupid… unless you want to weasel out of it.

Are you weaseling out of it?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Follow the links above, for a start. Then google up the rest your own damn self. **

What links?

[minty_green]

First, you provide a link to the same Atlantic article I linked and discussed above.

Then you say you’ve read my links.

Then you say you can’t find my links.
This cognitive dissonance thing is worse than you feared, 'luce.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**First, you provide a link to the same Atlantic article I linked and discussed above.

**

You didn’t discuss it, you moron. All you said was

In it, he gives a bit of insight into his philosophy, which makes no sense whatsoever.

That’s not a discussion, nor is lack of sense by any means a disqualification for identity as a Democrat.

on the Soros link you say:

his great thoughts are impervious to labels

I see, as you say a lot of overlap between his thoughts and Democrats, but I see nothing icompatible. How does this disqalify him?

Then you say you’ve read my links.

Then you say you can’t find my links.

I 'd assumed from your reference that you were referring to some post wherein you actually made an argument, instead of engaging in shallow generalizations and weaseling.

So what does Soros say or do that not only disqualifies him as a Democrat, but renders all the activities, support, common ground he shares with them moot?

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Minty:

Here’s a good Soros philosophy piece, printed in the Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htm

Let’s see:

-Doesn’t like Apartheid
-Likes “open societies.”
**

Interesting.

You seem to be arguing that these two positions, among others, make Soros a good fit for the Democrats.

Is this, finally, an admission that Republicans really don’t mind apartheid too much, and dislike open societies?

If you, let me be the first to congratulate you on your refreshing candor.

[mhendo]

D’oh.

That should read “If so, let me be the first…”

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**…This cognitive dissonance thing is worse than you feared, 'luce. **

Yes! Just as I have been saying! Cognitive Dissonance is the Number #1 threat to the Republic! It has gone past epidemic and reached pandemic proportions!

When your CD volunteer comes calling, thing of little Scylla (CD poster child, 2004) give, and give generously!

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
**Interesting.

You seem to be arguing that these two positions, among others, make Soros a good fit for the Democrats.

Is this, finally, an admission that Republicans really don’t mind apartheid too much, and dislike open societies?

If you, let me be the first to congratulate you on your refreshing candor. **

How do I respond to stupidity of this magnitude?

I tell you what. I’ll accept your logic and stipulate that what you say is true if you will agree that since Republicans wish to protect the American people means Democrats wish to kill the American people.

How does that sound?

[RedFury]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**How do I respond to stupidity of this magnitude?

I tell you what. I’ll accept your logic and stipulate that what you say is true if you will agree that since Republicans wish to protect the American people means Democrats wish to kill the American people.

How does that sound? **

Like an honest glimpse into your thought (?) process.

[mhendo]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**How do I respond to stupidity of this magnitude?

I tell you what. I’ll accept your logic and stipulate that what you say is true if you will agree that since Republicans wish to protect the American people means Democrats wish to kill the American people.

How does that sound? **

Hey, i have no trouble admitting that Dems and Pubs have certain policies in common, and my post was largely tongue-in-cheek anyway. I guess i shoulda put a smiley, given that your conservatism seems to have stunted not only your empathy and generosity, but also you sense of humour.

Also, unlike you, i was not the one making an attempt specifically to differentiate Soros as a Democrat, in contrast to other political affiliations or parties.

Finally, i don’t quite understand your contant reference to Soros’s opposition to current drug policy as evidence of his affiliation with the Democrats. There are plenty of Democrats, especially in the South, who have no problem at all with the “War on Drugs,” and virutally nothing was done under the Clinton administration to make that war any less stupid or draconian.

Furthermore, there are plenty of people, including some politicans, who are affiliated with the Republican Party due to its economic policies, but who also have a libertarian streak that opposes current drug criminalization policies.

There are people on either side of the drug debate on both sides of the political fence, and it’s a brave person who can claim to determine someone’s political affiliation from their position on drug policy.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
**Hey, i have no trouble admitting that Dems and Pubs have certain policies in common, and my post was largely tongue-in-cheek anyway. I guess i shoulda put a smiley, given that your conservatism seems to have stunted not only your empathy and generosity, but also you sense of humour.

**

Not at all. Within the context of this thread, where Soros is not a Democrat, Moveon doesn’t sponsor ads which they post on their own website claiming they sponsored them, Moveon is nonpartisan, and no Democrat has compared Hitler to Bush, well your little statement fits right in.

Also, unlike you, i was not the one making an attempt specifically to differentiate Soros as a Democrat, in contrast to other political affiliations or parties.

You mean like all the Republican senate campaigns and Republican organizations that Soros has supported going back to 1991?

Finally, i don’t quite understand your contant reference to Soros’s opposition to current drug policy as evidence of his affiliation with the Democrats. There are plenty of Democrats, especially in the South, who have no problem at all with the “War on Drugs,” and virutally nothing was done under the Clinton administration to make that war any less stupid or draconian.

No. no. no. This is not my objection. This was the closest we could get Minty from his weaseling into actually qualifying his arguments. Since Minty doesn’t actually come out and say what it is that makes Soros not a Democrat one must attempt to draw inferences from his vague generalizations. Earlier Minty said words to the effect that Soros has a “strong libertarian streak” that makes him incompatible with Democratic thought. Probably this is referring to Soros’ campaign for drug legalization.

I keep bringing this up, because I don’t see how it is incompatible. Hopefully, one day Minty will stop weaseling and get specific, but trying to get a straight answer out of the sonovabitch is about as easy as getting a straight answer out of Elucidator.

Furthermore, there are plenty of people, including some politicans, who are affiliated with the Republican Party due to its economic policies, but who also have a libertarian streak that opposes current drug criminalization policies.

Exactly, I don’t see how it disqualifies them as Republicans. Why should it disqualify Soros as a Democrat?

**There are people on either side of the drug debate on both sides of the political fence, and it’s a brave person who can claim to determine someone’s political affiliation from their position on drug policy. **

Well, perhaps you should take it up with Minty. This appears to be his dog. Then again, maybe not. The fucker won’t come out and say why Soros isn’t a Democrat. Probably because he’s a weaselly little motherfucker incapable of admitting any error. That’s why he’s locked into his stance.

If he attempts to define his argument, he knows he’ll get shot to shit. That’s why he resists actually saying anything germaine.

[elucidator]

…is about as easy as getting a straight answer out of Elucidator.

Oh, I gave you your straight answers, buckaroo, you just didn’t like them. Keep in mind that a person who poses a “question” like “Did you ask for the cite because you are this stupid, or did you ask for it just to fuck with me?” has entirely surrendered any any pretense of dignity.

[minty_green]

Jesus F. Christ, weasel man, did you fucking read that 1997 Soros article? If so, please tell me how on earth his positions make him a “Democrat” instead of a bizarro leftist-libertarian-internationalist loony? To wit:

There is a realm where these conditions prevail: natural science. But in other areas of human endeavor the relationship between statements and facts is less clear-cut. In social and political affairs the participants’ perceptions help to determine reality. In these situations facts do not necessarily constitute reliable criteria for judging the truth of statements. There is a two-way connection – a feedback mechanism – between thinking and events, which I have called “reflexivity.” I have used it to develop a theory of history.

Operating under Communist regimes, I never felt the need to explain what “open society” meant; those who supported the objectives of the foundations understood it better than I did, even if they were not familiar with the expression. The goal of my foundation in Hungary, for example, was to support alternative activities. I knew that the prevailing Communist dogma was false exactly because it was a dogma, and that it would become unsustainable if it was exposed to alternatives. The approach proved effective. The foundation became the main source of support for civil society in Hungary, and as civil society flourished, so the Communist regime waned.

Insofar as there is a dominant belief in our society today, it is a belief in the magic of the marketplace. The doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest. Unless it is tempered by the recognition of a common interest that ought to take precedence over particular interests, our present system – which, however imperfect, qualifies as an open society – is liable to break down.

I want to emphasize, however, that I am not putting laissez-faire capitalism in the same category as Nazism or communism. Totalitarian ideologies deliberately seek to destroy the open society; laissez-faire policies may endanger it, but only inadvertently. Friedrich Hayek, one of the apostles of laissez-faire, was also a passionate proponent of the open society. Nevertheless, because communism and even socialism have been thoroughly discredited, I consider the threat from the laissez-faire side more potent today than the threat from totalitarian ideologies. We are enjoying a truly global market economy in which goods, services, capital, and even people move around quite freely, but we fail to recognize the need to sustain the values and institutions of an open society.

There has been an ongoing conflict between market values and other, more traditional value systems, which has aroused strong passions and antagonisms. As the market mechanism has extended its sway, the fiction that people act on the basis of a given set of nonmarket values has become progressively more difficult to maintain. Advertising, marketing, even packaging, aim at shaping people’s preferences rather than, as laissez-faire theory holds, merely responding to them. Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better. The value of a work of art can be judged by the price it fetches. People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor.

Gosh, you’re right, that stuff is indistinguishable from the Democratic platform. :rolleyes: