OFFLINE

Hmm...ya dont like Dod's sources eh?  Lol!

Well, is the NY Times and Paul Krugman left wing enough for ya?  

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is critical of Soros's effect on financial markets.

"[N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is 'Soroi.'
[[Krugman, Paul]] (1999). The accidental theorist: and other dispatches from the dismal science. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 160.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Hmm...ya dont like Dod's sources eh?  Lol!

Well, is the NY Times and Paul Krugman left wing enough for ya?  

What, you couldn't find any relevant quotes from "Pravda" for me, no? ;-P  

Am not arguing about what he has done in the past in terms of manipulating the currency markets etc, am just thinking that the best place to look for evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy is not on websites with an obvious right-wing bias, that is sort of like looking for evidence that there is a God in the Vatican library, you pretty much know what you're going to find before you start looking.  If I was to do an "exposé" on Rupert Murdoch's influence using just sites like the NYTimes, MSNBC, moveon.org, americanprogress.org etc as sources, you guys would pin me to the wall, and rightly so, so am just pre-emptively returning the favour....

Am not arguing either that he isn't an amoral egomaniacal bastard with an agenda and a history of meddling, am saying that it's easy enough if you have a particular slant on things to turn him into Bloefeld (or Dr Evil, whichever you prefer). As Bryant said, "financial contribution does not equate to control".  

OFFLINE

Here's a quote from the "evil media boogeyman of the left" which applies to the "evil media boogeyman of the right" as well :-P



from about 00:20 to 00:45 there....

OFFLINE

what? that just a single news organization can't sway popular opinion that much? miles, we're not talking about just a single news organization. every mainstream outlet says virtually the same thing! or slight variations, but always from the same liberal point of view. this is why public confidence in most mainstream sources is way down.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
what? that just a single news organization can't sway popular opinion that much? miles, we're not talking about just a single news organization. every mainstream outlet says virtually the same thing! or slight variations, but always from the same liberal point of view. this is why public confidence in most mainstream sources is way down.

Interesting note, according to a recent PPP pole PBS is the most trusted news source in the US (trusted by 50%), despite the fact no one actually watches it.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_0119930.pdf

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
despite the fact no one actually watches it.

this is probably why lol

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Hmm...ya dont like Dod's sources eh?  Lol!

Well, is the NY Times and Paul Krugman left wing enough for ya?  

What, you couldn't find any relevant quotes from "Pravda" for me, no? ;-P  

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
Am not arguing about what he has done in the past in terms of manipulating the currency markets etc, am just thinking that the best place to look for evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy is not on websites with an obvious right-wing bias, that is sort of like looking for evidence that there is a God in the Vatican library, you pretty much know what you're going to find before you start looking.  If I was to do an "exposé" on Rupert Murdoch's influence using just sites like the NYTimes, MSNBC, moveon.org, americanprogress.org etc as sources, you guys would pin me to the wall, and rightly so, so am just pre-emptively returning the favour....

Am not arguing either that he isn't an amoral egomaniacal bastard with an agenda and a history of meddling, am saying that it's easy enough if you have a particular slant on things to turn him into Bloefeld (or Dr Evil, whichever you prefer). As Bryant said, "financial contribution does not equate to control".  

I understand.  You are looking for unbiased sources.  That's kinda why I quoted Paul Krugman...a left-wing bomb thrower I cant stand.  It sorta shows that both the right (Glenn Beck) and the far left (Krugman) agree that Soros is a bad bad man.

As for unbiased sources...in this country they are getting harder and harder to find.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

As for unbiased sources...in this country they are getting harder and harder to find.

So the definition of unbiased these days should maybe be "someone that both sides are pissed off at"? ;-P

OFFLINE

way to kill a thread miles!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
way to kill a thread miles!

Hey, given the huge amount of ppl who post in here on a dialy basis, who else were you expecting to reply?  Is hardly like we have to form an orderly queue here is it? :-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

As for unbiased sources...in this country they are getting harder and harder to find.

So the definition of unbiased these days should maybe be "someone that both sides are pissed off at"? ;-P

I guess so. Lol!!  But really, its difficult here because Fox news does take atraitionally conservative slant and the other news media are decidedly left wing.  So we have to pick our news info from someone.  Who should we choose...Al Jazeera?  Lol!  

I guess there's just no such thing as impartial source anymore.

OFFLINE

What about the Koch brothers & their influence in American politics & all the money they have poured into repubublican candidates and rightwing thinktanks?  They have promised to raise $88 million for the 2012 elections.  Apparently, whoever has the most money in this country can get the people they want elected to office.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Sarah Skinner:
What about the Koch brothers & their influence in American politics & all the money they have poured into repubublican candidates and rightwing thinktanks?  They have promised to raise $88 million for the 2012 elections.  Apparently, whoever has the most money in this country can get the people they want elected to office.

i dunno, do they support a global socialist agenda, or have they collapsed economies?

OFFLINE

Thats it exactly.  The concern isnt that some people are using money to support American political causes.  The concern is that some are using their dollars to try to overthrow the American Republic and institute something else like Marxism or a socialist form of govt.  As far as I can tell, the Koch brothers support the Constitution and are patriotic.  Soros uses Constitutional Freedoms in his efforts to trample upon it and hopes to change our society into his Socialist vision of a NEw World order.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Thats it exactly.  The concern isnt that some people are using money to support American political causes.  The concern is that some are using their dollars to try to overthrow the American Republic and institute something else like Marxism or a socialist form of govt.  As far as I can tell, the Koch brothers support the Constitution and are patriotic.  Soros uses Constitutional Freedoms in his efforts to trample upon it and hopes to change our society into his Socialist vision of a NEw World order.

wow dennis, couldn't have said it better myself. high five!