Glenn Beck (1 Viewer)

[urbanhack]

off his meds.

 

[jamny]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

 

[Choke]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

 

[Phurfur]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of interest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

 

[jamny]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

So what are the lies? I don't really know much about Soros so I'd like to hear all sides and opinions.

 

[Jewell]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of interest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

First person accounts are the best way to learn about somebody, and it makes it more difficult to argue the source is being misinterpreted. Say what you will about Soros, but he's a pretty good writer...http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issue...03/12/soros.htm

 

[Choke]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of intrest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

I did look into it. Beck is a person of ineterest as well, as is Murdoch. Its lies piled on lies.You have several places documenting all the lies; using actual facts, not just talk and emotion.

 

[Phurfur]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of interest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

I did look into it. Beck is a person of ineterest as well, as is Murdoch. Its lies piled on lies.

This was asked before, what are these lies? Saying someone is lying and not backing it up is a grade school debate tactic.

 

[Choke]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of interest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

I did look into it. Beck is a person of ineterest as well, as is Murdoch. Its lies piled on lies.

This was asked before, what are these lies? Saying someone is lying and not backing it up is a grade school debate tactic.

Since you looked into (as you told me to do) then you will be well aware, and you can help the lockstepper out on this one. *anyone buying into Beck (or defending him), is beyond help.

 

[urbanhack]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

How about the puppets?

 

[Novice2]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

I haven't seen the show but George Soros is a person of interest and he has a history. Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

I did look into it. Beck is a person of ineterest as well, as is Murdoch. Its lies piled on lies.

This was asked before, what are these lies? Saying someone is lying and not backing it up is a grade school debate tactic.

YOU LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dickey moe]

Waiting for Choke to refute any of the information about Soros -- 'CEPT HE WON'T.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

Since you looked into (as you told me to do) then you will be well aware, and you can help the lockstepper out on this one. *anyone buying into Beck (or defending him), is beyond help.

You know your stuff.

 

[Phurfur]

Since you looked into (as you told me to do) then you will be well aware, and you can help the lockstepper out on this one. *anyone buying into Beck (or defending him), is beyond help.

Like I said, I didn't see the show so I am not defending anyone. You said Beck told "lies piled on lies" but you cannot name one lie. It makes you out to be the liar. As usual, you got nothing!

 

[Choke]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

 

[cubd8]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

 

[Choke]

Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

Especially true for anyone listening-to, believing or defending anything that Murdoch+Beck are selling you.Get smart. Look into what they are feeding you.

 

[cubd8]

Look into it before you judge, it might surprise you.

Especially true for anyone listening-to, believing or defending anything that Murdoch+Beck are selling you.Get smart. Look into what they are feeding you.

I'm not a Beck fan either, but I also don't support Media Matter's style of smearing right wingers.

 

[Choke]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

But the facts are the facts. Regardless fo who posted it to read. Beck+Fox are REMOVING the facts from the conversation.

 

[jamny]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

So it appears as if Soros did say that capitalism poses a serious threat. I find it laughable that he derides the influence of money in politics, saying it "contaminates the political process" Is there any doubt that he has used his considerable financial power to influence elections to favor his open society? While it can be considered an exaggeration, is it a "lie" to say he waged a war on capitalism?

 

[jamny]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

If someone of Beck's popularity piles lies upon lies against one of the richest men in the world, why won't he get sued for slander? Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to expose Beck as the propoganda machine that he is? You think it's just luck?

 

[pantherclub]

Lovin' the George Soros stuff.

He is piling on so many lies, he should count his lucky stars that his target doesnt sue him.

If someone of Beck's popularity piles lies upon lies against one of the richest men in the world, why won't he get sued for slander? Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to expose Beck as the propoganda machine that he is? You think it's just luck?

Nah, he will just have him killed.Seriously though how ape#### would the Beck fans go if Beck died in a car wreck sometime soon?

 

[Class Dismissed]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

LMAO....I was going to post that he was waiting on talking points from Media Matters.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

 

[CBusAlex]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I suppose that makes them and Beck about equally credible.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Here is just one... but I thought Phurfur was espousing people to "look into it" for themselves.

BECK CLAIM: Soros "waged a war against capitalism" by saying "it poses some serious threats"

BECK: He's waged a war against capitalism.

SOROS: Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats.

REALITY: Soros was explaining that regulations are needed to shield individuals from financial bubbles. Soros was actually explaining that while capitalism is superior to "Soviet communism," capitalism needs to be regulated. Beck edited out both the criticism of communism and Soros' explanation for the need for regulation in a capitalist system. From a lecture given by Soros at Central European University on October 29, 2009, "Capitalism Versus Open Society":

Capitalism is not directly opposed to open society the way Soviet communism was. Nevertheless, it poses some serious threats. I have already discussed one of them; financial markets are not equilibrium-bound but bubble-prone. The dismantling of the regulatory mechanism has given rise to a super- bubble whose bursting will negatively influence the American economy for several years to come. This discussion has revealed another threat to open society: the agency problem and the influence of money in politics, which contaminate the political process.

In an open society, the political process is supposed to serve the common interest; in contemporary America, the political process has been captured by special interests. Our elected representatives are beholden to those who finance their election, not to the electorate at large. What is happening to President Obama's healthcare and energy bills provides a vivid illustration. The electorate has been brainwashed to such an extent that a responsible discussion of the public good has become well-nigh impossible. A national health service and a carbon tax are nonstarters. Our choices are confined to solutions that can be gamed by special interests.

Lobbying is at the core of the agency problem. How can it be brought under control?

This is an ethical issue and not a matter of modifying economic incentives. Lobbying is lucrative and it is liable to remain so even if the rules are tightened. In the absence of moral values, regulations can always be circumvented; what is worse, the regulations themselves will be designed to serve special interests, not the common interest. That is the danger facing the United States today when a wounded financial sector is seeking to regain its former pre-eminence.

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

But the facts are the facts. Regardless fo who posted it to read. Beck+Fox are REMOVING the facts from the conversation.

Hard to believe any rational person defending Beck.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm only hearing this secondhand, and I'm skeptical. Did Beck really criticize Soros for bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Beck lied when he said on 7/22/09 on his T.V. show that the Director of White House Science and Technology Policy, "John Holdren has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." He never advocated it in fact the only link to this smear

was that years earlier he had talked about various techniques for controlling population BUT he NEVER proposed a government never use it.

This is the world that Glenn Beck has created inside his own little pathetic paranoid head.

 

[Jewell]

I'm only hearing this secondhand, and I'm skeptical. Did Beck really criticize Soros for bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe?

New Statesmen Profile - George Soros

June 2, 2003 LINK w/ full article

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine.

Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanisation" of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation. With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex-Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s. Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that "the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organisation than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to be all that open in practice.

Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group. But there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former protege Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state in Europe.

But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices.

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University, with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties, business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not. The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky. "Few people have done to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the capital city and Hungary itself". The mayor failed to add that Soros is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats, which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the classic Soros agenda of privatisation and economic liberalisation - leading to a widening gap between rich and poor.

 

[timschochet]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

 

[Nigel]

I never watch Beck, but my MIL is one of his groupies and I assume he is behind her ranting that by 2013 a 2.5oz Hershey chocolate bar will cost $14, and a Starbuck's coffee something like $30?

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm only hearing this secondhand, and I'm skeptical. Did Beck really criticize Soros for bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe?

New Statesmen Profile - George Soros

June 2, 2003 LINK w/ full article

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine.

Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanisation" of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation. With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex-Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s. Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that "the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organisation than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to be all that open in practice.

Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group. But there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former protege Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state in Europe.

But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices.

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University, with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties, business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not. The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky. "Few people have done to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the capital city and Hungary itself". The mayor failed to add that Soros is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats, which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the classic Soros agenda of privatisation and economic liberalisation - leading to a widening gap between rich and poor.

a) I don't see any criticism of Beck's here.b) According to this article, Soros must be hated by the right out of jealousy as he successfully got to new markets first. After all, money = speech. Right?

 

[Jewell]

I'm only hearing this secondhand, and I'm skeptical. Did Beck really criticize Soros for bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe?

New Statesmen Profile - George Soros

June 2, 2003 LINK w/ full article

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine.

Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanisation" of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation. With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex-Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s. Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that "the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organisation than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to be all that open in practice.

Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group. But there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former protege Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state in Europe.

But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices.

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University, with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties, business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not. The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky. "Few people have done to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the capital city and Hungary itself". The mayor failed to add that Soros is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats, which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the classic Soros agenda of privatisation and economic liberalisation - leading to a widening gap between rich and poor.

a) I don't see any criticism of Beck's here.b) According to this article, Soros must be hated by the right out of jealousy as he successfully got to new markets first. After all, money = speech. Right?

a) I don't know what Beck's specific criticisms of Soros are? I just posted that article to show that others also accuse Soros of "bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe."b) I don't know if Soros should be hated. It depends on your perspective. Money gives you a greater ability to disseminate your speech and perhaps quiet others' speech, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by money = speech.

 

[Orange Crush]

I'm only hearing this secondhand, and I'm skeptical. Did Beck really criticize Soros for bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe?

New Statesmen Profile - George Soros

June 2, 2003 LINK w/ full article

The New Statesman is a British left-wing political magazine.

Soros knows a better way - armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it.

The conventional view, shared by many on the left, is that socialism collapsed in eastern Europe because of its systemic weaknesses and the political elite's failure to build popular support. That may be partly true, but Soros's role was crucial. From 1979, he distributed $3m a year to dissidents including Poland's Solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a "civil society", these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe's eventual colonisation by global capital. Soros now claims, with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the "Americanisation" of eastern Europe.

The Yugoslavs remained stubbornly resistant and repeatedly returned Slobodan Milosevic's unreformed Socialist Party to government. Soros was equal to the challenge. From 1991, his Open Society Institute channelled more than $100m to the coffers of the anti-Milosevic opposition, funding political parties, publishing houses and "independent" media such as Radio B92, the plucky little student radio station of western mythology which was in reality bankrolled by one of the world's richest men on behalf of the world's most powerful nation. With Slobo finally toppled in 2000 in a coup d'etat financed, planned and executed in Washington, all that was left was to cart the ex-Yugoslav leader to the Hague tribunal, co-financed by Soros along with those other custodians of human rights Time Warner Corporation and Disney. He faced charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, based in the main on the largely anecdotal evidence of (you've guessed it) Human Rights Watch.

Soros stresses his belief in the "open society" propounded by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him at the LSE in the early 1950s. Soros's definition of an "open society" - "an imperfect society that holds itself open to improvement" - sounds reasonable enough; few lovers of genuine liberty would take issue with its central tenet that "the open society is a more sophisticated form of social organisation than a totalitarian one". But Soros's "open societies" don't tend to be all that open in practice.

Since the fall of Milosevic, Serbia, under the auspices of Soros-backed "reformers", has become less, not more, free. The recently lifted state of emergency saw more than 4,000 people arrested, many of them without charge, political parties threatened with bans, and critical newspapers closed down. It was condemned by the UN Commission on Human Rights and the British Helsinki Group. But there was not a murmur from the Open Society Institute or from Soros himself. In fairness, Soros has been far more critical of his former protege Leonid Kuchma, president of the Ukraine, a country described by the former intelligence officer Mykola Melnychenko as "one big protection racket", and now possibly the most repressive police state in Europe.

But generally the sad conclusion is that for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open". In Kosovo, for example, he has invested $50m in an attempt to gain control of the Trepca mine complex, where there are vast reserves of gold, silver, lead and other minerals estimated to be worth in the region of $5bn. He thus copied a pattern he has deployed to great effect over the whole of eastern Europe: of advocating "shock therapy" and "economic reform", then swooping in with his associates to buy valuable state assets at knock-down prices.

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soros is the uncrowned king of eastern Europe. His Central European University, with campuses in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague and exchange programmes in the US, unashamedly propagates the ethos of neoliberal capitalism and clones the next pro-American generation of political leaders in the region. With his financial stranglehold over political parties, business, educational institutions and the arts, criticism of Soros in mainstream eastern European media is hard to find. Hagiography is not. The Budapest Sun reported in February how he had been made an honorary citizen of Budapest by the mayor, Gabor Demszky. "Few people have done to Budapest what George Soros has," gushed Demszky, saying that the billionaire had contributed to "structural and mental changes in the capital city and Hungary itself". The mayor failed to add that Soros is also a benefactor of Demszky's own party, the Free Democrats, which, governing with "reform" communists, has pursued the classic Soros agenda of privatisation and economic liberalisation - leading to a widening gap between rich and poor.

a) I don't see any criticism of Beck's here.b) According to this article, Soros must be hated by the right out of jealousy as he successfully got to new markets first. After all, money = speech. Right?

a) I don't know what Beck's specific criticisms of Soros are? I just posted that article to show that others also accuse Soros of "bankrolling pro-Democracy groups in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe."b) I don't know if Soros should be hated. It depends on your perspective. Money gives you a greater ability to disseminate your speech and perhaps quiet others' speech, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by money = speech.

a) Accusing? I think Soros gleefully brags about it. I heard that Beck criticized Soros for this, which seems to place Beck as pro-Russia. That's what I'm curious about. b) I don't see anything in that article that either Soros, or those purportedly on the right politically for that matter, would deem as attack-worthy. He helped overthrow totalitarian, Soviet-backed governments. He invested in those countries and created new markets. He profited. What's the problem? That the countries ended up not as open and democratic as the U.S.? And Soros is completely responsible for that result? Please.

 

[Jewell]

b) I don't see anything in that article that either Soros, or those purportedly on the right politically for that matter, would deem as attack-worthy. He helped overthrow totalitarian, Soviet-backed governments. He invested in those countries and created new markets. He profited. What's the problem? That the countries ended up not as open and democratic as the U.S.? And Soros is completely responsible for that result? Please.

I think the issue is the process rather than the end. People aren't concerned about what Eastern Europe became compared to what it was. People are concerned that one man focused his sights and resources on an existing regime and had a significant hand in toppling it. As a result, Soros was integral in reshaping societies. Now there's concern that Soros has focused his sights and resources on the U.S.. People have seen Soros significantly change societies before, and now they're afraid the same could happen here. People are resistant to change no matter what the change is, but especially if the end is unknown or ambiguous.

a) Accusing? I think Soros gleefully brags about it. I heard that Beck criticized Soros for this, which seems to place Beck as pro-Russia. That's what I'm curious about.

I don't see how that makes Beck pro-Russia. I don't watch Beck, but it sounds to me like he's more concerned about how successful Soros' process was rather than showing an affinity for the governments Soros had a hand in toppling.

 

[Orange Crush]

b) I don't see anything in that article that either Soros, or those purportedly on the right politically for that matter, would deem as attack-worthy. He helped overthrow totalitarian, Soviet-backed governments. He invested in those countries and created new markets. He profited. What's the problem? That the countries ended up not as open and democratic as the U.S.? And Soros is completely responsible for that result? Please.

I think the issue is the process rather than the end. People aren't concerned about what Eastern Europe became compared to what it was. People are concerned that one man focused his sights and resources on an existing regime and had a significant hand in toppling it. As a result, Soros was integral in reshaping societies. Now there's concern that Soros has focused his sights and resources on the U.S.. People have seen Soros significantly change societies before, and now they're afraid the same could happen here. People are resistant to change no matter what the change is, but especially if the end is unknown or ambiguous.

a) Accusing? I think Soros gleefully brags about it. I heard that Beck criticized Soros for this, which seems to place Beck as pro-Russia. That's what I'm curious about.

I don't see how that makes Beck pro-Russia. I don't watch Beck, but it sounds to me like he's more concerned about how successful Soros' process was rather than showing an affinity for the governments Soros had a hand in toppling.

This, too, makes me curious. I thought the central tenet of tea party conservatism, of which Beck seems to be a main proponent of (if not their de facto spokesperson), is the power of the individual over that of the government. Here, Soros is accused of succeeding on his own where the entire U.S. government tried and failed. This view is ridiculous, the truth is that there were a myriad of factors that brought about the fall of the iron curtain, but this is the view that you are purporting towards Beck and the Soros-fear-mongers. So, is this mere hypocrisy? Or just another example of the internal inconsistencies found in Beck's arguments.

 

[Mario Kart]

Can Soros see Russia from his house? Did he ever answer that question?

 

[Jewell]

This, too, makes me curious. I thought the central tenet of tea party conservatism, of which Beck seems to be a main proponent of (if not their de facto spokesperson), is the power of the individual over that of the government. Here, Soros is accused of succeeding on his own where the entire U.S. government tried and failed. This view is ridiculous, the truth is that there were a myriad of factors that brought about the fall of the iron curtain, but this is the view that you are purporting towards Beck and the Soros-fear-mongers.

Actually, that's not what I'm purporting at all. Reread my most recent posts. I say that Soros had "a hand in" toppling governments. That's true -- Soros did have a hand in toppling governments. Obviously, there are a myriad of factors anytime governments or societies shift. That's why I stressed "a hand in" rather than saying Soros was the reason. Reread in my posts the part where I say that you shouldn't necessarily hate Soros, it's just a matter of perspective. Reread my top post where I link Soros writing, don't say a bad word about him, and leave it up to the reader to decide how they feel about him. All I'm doing is presenting info. I'm not drawing definitive conclusions about him, and I'm not fear-mongering.

 

[jamny]

This, too, makes me curious. I thought the central tenet of tea party conservatism, of which Beck seems to be a main proponent of (if not their de facto spokesperson), is the power of the individual over that of the government. Here, Soros is accused of succeeding on his own where the entire U.S. government tried and failed. This view is ridiculous, the truth is that there were a myriad of factors that brought about the fall of the iron curtain, but this is the view that you are purporting towards Beck and the Soros-fear-mongers.

Actually, that's not what I'm purporting at all. Reread my most recent posts. I say that Soros had "a hand in" toppling governments. That's true -- Soros did have a hand in toppling governments. Obviously, there are a myriad of factors anytime governments or societies shift. That's why I stressed "a hand in" rather than saying Soros was the reason. Reread in my posts the part where I say that you shouldn't necessarily hate Soros, it's just a matter of perspective. Reread my top post where I link Soros writing, don't say a bad word about him, and leave it up to the reader to decide how they feel about him. All I'm doing is presenting info. I'm not drawing definitive conclusions about him, and I'm not fear-mongering.

And this is what I take away from what Beck has been presenting. He's been showing a lot of interviews, articles and writings to reinforce his concerns about Soros. Is he doing it in an over the top way? Yes, yes he is. That's television these days. Does Michael Moore go over the top? I can see through it and still take away some information from it. Bring it up here and read what people who are more knowledgable than I am about Soros think about him, so I can form an opinion. That's all. I'm not defending Beck. I'm listening to his side and, as he says over and over, doing my own research. Who else is even talking about George Soros, much less doing a series of shows about him? I knew next to nothing about him not too long ago, know a little about him now, and will make sure to read or listen when people talk about him in the future. Hey, good for Soros too...I might buy one of his books. Maybe he and Beck are in cohoots!

 

[Mario Kart]

And this is what I take away from what Beck has been presenting. He's been showing a lot of interviews, articles and writings to reinforce his concerns about Soros. Is he doing it in an over the top way? Yes, yes he is. That's television these days. Does Michael Moore go over the top? I can see through it and still take away some information from it. Bring it up here and read what people who are more knowledgable than I am about Soros think about him, so I can form an opinion. That's all. I'm not defending Beck. I'm listening to his side and, as he says over and over, doing my own research. Who else is even talking about George Soros, much less doing a series of shows about him? I knew next to nothing about him not too long ago, know a little about him now, and will make sure to read or listen when people talk about him in the future. Hey, good for Soros too...I might buy one of his books. Maybe he and Beck are in cohoots!

The only issue I have with your statement is comparing Beck to Moore. Beck has a much larger audience plus he is a daily voice that further reinforces whatever beliefs his viewers have. Moore, from what I know, has little audience and does not have his own show of any kind. Sure, Moore does go over the top when he does voice his opinion but how often does he do it and how many people hear it? Does a falling tree make noise if no one hears it? I am not defending Moore at all but to use a minor voice to a, somewhat, much larger voice does not bode well for an argument, imo.

 

[jamny]

And this is what I take away from what Beck has been presenting. He's been showing a lot of interviews, articles and writings to reinforce his concerns about Soros. Is he doing it in an over the top way? Yes, yes he is. That's television these days. Does Michael Moore go over the top? I can see through it and still take away some information from it. Bring it up here and read what people who are more knowledgable than I am about Soros think about him, so I can form an opinion. That's all. I'm not defending Beck. I'm listening to his side and, as he says over and over, doing my own research. Who else is even talking about George Soros, much less doing a series of shows about him? I knew next to nothing about him not too long ago, know a little about him now, and will make sure to read or listen when people talk about him in the future. Hey, good for Soros too...I might buy one of his books. Maybe he and Beck are in cohoots!

The only issue I have with your statement is comparing Beck to Moore. Beck has a much larger audience plus he is a daily voice that further reinforces whatever beliefs his viewers have. Moore, from what I know, has little audience and does not have his own show of any kind. Sure, Moore does go over the top when he does voice his opinion but how often does he do it and how many people hear it? Does a falling tree make noise if no one hears it? I am not defending Moore at all but to use a minor voice to a, somewhat, much larger voice does not bode well for an argument, imo.

I get your point but it's the closest I could come up with as a counter to Beck. I don't really watch Olberman or Maddow but they seem to be selling a slanted view too, just in a more professional news-type environment. Beck is zany and over the top. That's why I watch. It's entertainment with a news slant. He's a goofball, might be insane and I laugh at him more than with him. I don't like some of his religious stuff or his history stuff and don't like his Friday audience shows. who is a better counter to Beck?

 

[Choke]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

 

[jamny]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Soros Donates $1 Million to Media Matters

Not suing but fighting it out in the court of public opinion.

 

[Choke]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Soros Donates $1 Million to Media Matters

Not suing but fighting it out in the court of public opinion.

Good for him.

 

[jamny]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Soros Donates $1 Million to Media Matters

Not suing but fighting it out in the court of public opinion.

Good for him.

Why won't Soros take Beck to court to stop all of the lies and clear his good name?

 

[Choke]

Why won't Soros take Beck to court to stop all of the lies and clear his good name?

I cant answer that.Though I would guess... Glenn Beck and FoxNews is a giant waste of time. (do consider he just did his Sorors stuff this week -- He probably doesnt waste much time on him)*and ftr: Im not saying Sorors has a good name. Im saying anyone paying attention to Beck and not comprehending his lies piled upon lies is a donkey. And I (as well as others) will keep pointing it out.

 

[jamny]

Why won't Soros take Beck to court to stop all of the lies and clear his good name?

I cant answer that.Though I would guess... Glenn Beck and FoxNews is a giant waste of time. (do consider he just did his Sorors stuff this week -- He probably doesnt waste much time on him)

Time, but not money I guess.

 

[Choke]

Why won't Soros take Beck to court to stop all of the lies and clear his good name?

I cant answer that.Though I would guess... Glenn Beck and FoxNews is a giant waste of time. (do consider he just did his Sorors stuff this week -- He probably doesnt waste much time on him)

Time, but not money I guess.

He has sooo much money that it means little.He has the same amount of time as everyone else in the world.

 

[jon_mx]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

May I attach Exhibit 1 of just how much they care about being accurate...

Media Matters Won't Apologize for Spreading Fake Limbaugh Slavery Quote

Media Matters for America was founded to fight conservative "misinformation." But they don't fight liberal misinformation. They spread it. The Radio Equalizer blog is reporting that now that Rush Limbaugh's NFL-ownership bid is ruined, Media Matters is telling liberal radio hosts that maybe they could stop spreading absurd fake quotes about Limbaugh suggesting slavery had merits or Martin Luther King’s assassin deserved a medal. On the Stephanie Miller show on Wednesday, Karl Frisch of Media Matters suggested that the quotes were fictions, but that they fit Limbaugh’s other racist quotes:

You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We’ve had people call us trying to find it. We don’t know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we’re happy to give them other examples.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/20...e#ixzz151fOBYY7

Yep...they may not make #### up, but they have no problem 'reporting' made up #### when it fits their bias.

 

[Choke]

No offense, but this is from Media Matters which most would agree, to put it nicely, is a left wing smear site.

I agree that MM is left wing, and they certainly spend their time attacking conservatives. But your use is the word "smear" implies that they lie and/or make up stuff. I've never seen any evidence of that. In fact, they are probably the most careful site I have ever seen in terms of backing up their claims. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

May I attach Exhibit 1 of just how much they care about being accurate...

Media Matters Won't Apologize for Spreading Fake Limbaugh Slavery Quote

Media Matters for America was founded to fight conservative "misinformation." But they don't fight liberal misinformation. They spread it. The Radio Equalizer blog is reporting that now that Rush Limbaugh's NFL-ownership bid is ruined, Media Matters is telling liberal radio hosts that maybe they could stop spreading absurd fake quotes about Limbaugh suggesting slavery had merits or Martin Luther King’s assassin deserved a medal. On the Stephanie Miller show on Wednesday, Karl Frisch of Media Matters suggested that the quotes were fictions, but that they fit Limbaugh’s other racist quotes:

You know, in fairness to Rush, those two out of literally dozens of racist things were not necessarily accurate. We were never able to find them. We’ve had people call us trying to find it. We don’t know where they came from. They could just be Internet apparitions. But you know, that being said, anyone who wants to know how racist he is, we’re happy to give them other examples.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/20...e#ixzz151fOBYY7

Yep...they may not make #### up, but they have no problem 'reporting' made up #### when it fits their bias.

1) quotes... that were NOT made up by Media matters.2) Media Matters suggested that the liberals stop spreading them.

3) They even go so far as to set the record straight and say they may be ficitious. (Should we wait on beck and fox to do the same?)

4) Frisch suggests that its not too far off of what Limbaugh has stated in the past with his other quotes. (Do you need some Limbaugh statements to match this?)