Soros

[_JS]

>>Soros was a 13 year-old kid when Fascism overtook Hungary. He delivered messages to Jewish lawyers who were being deported from Hungary. He had no idea what the hell was going on.<<

You're either stupid or a liar.

I'll go with liar.

Soros admitts what he did you twit. Read one of his books.

*yawn*

The daily Rich 2 minute hate. What was life like beforehand?

He was 13 when Fascism took over Hungary.

Now, why do you hate this guy so much? He represents everything you love. He's the king of capitalism.

[Richpo64]

Nice try, but you're still a lying twit.

 

[_JS]

Nice try, but you're still a lying twit.

 

I love you like a brother Rich, my fellow Catholic.

[Richpo64]

How nice!

(He's lying again)

<chuckle>

[Universe Prince]

Soros admits what he did you twit. Read one of his books.

Do you have a quote you'd like to share? The information I can find says Soros didn't know the true intent of the messages. If you have contrary information, please show it. I'd like to see it.

[Plane]

So what is the rights equivelent?
=============================
In no particular order:

National Association of Manufacturers.
Richard Mellon Scaife
The Hunt Brothers
The Cato Institute
Clearchannel
Fox "News"
Various "Right to Work" foundations.
The Heritage Foundation
The Olin Foundation
Pepperdine University
The John Birch Society

and a lot of others.
Together they could buy George Soros several times over, but they prefer keeping their money to most political causes, being as they already own most of what is worth owning.

Perhaps they arn't as intrested in polical power as Soros is .

I don't agree with your list either, particularly the John Birch Society, they would never endorse a Republican now would they.

[Michael Tee]

<<Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.>>

This is truly hilarious.  The Brookings Institution's Director of Research is none other than Kenneth Pollack, who is constantly cited by sirs as a source for his ridiculous "Bush didn't lie us into war" diatribes.  Also home of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by billionaire Zionist Haim Saban.

Actually, Soros is a righteous dude and I wish him and his projects great success.  Whoever points out Soros as a wealthy threat to democracy has to really put on blinders because as XO pointed out, the monied interests behind the extreme right-wing fascist elements  in your country truly dwarf Soros' contributions to the so-called "left."  I am very encouraged by the fact that the Wall Street Journal has to roll out a "hate-Soros" campaign now, because it means Soros must be really getting to them. 

[sirs]

<<Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.>>

This is truly hilarious.  The Brookings Institution's Director of Research is none other than Kenneth Pollack, who is constantly cited by sirs as a source for his ridiculous "Bush didn't lie us into war" diatribes.

Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?  The same fella that knows more about ours and the globe's intelligence gathering capabilities & their assessements, than Tee knows about meritless hyperbolic accusations?.  Gotcha

Actually, Soros is a righteous dude and I wish him and his projects great success.  

LOL, but of course you do. 

[Plane]

Whoever points out Soros as a wealthy threat to democracy has to really put on blinders because as XO pointed out, the monied interests behind the extreme right-wing fascist elements  in your country truly dwarf Soros' contributions to the so-called "left." 

As a single contributor is there anyone right or left that equalls Sorous?

If one must compile several right wing funding sorces to equal Sorous , then why must Sorous be considered alone ? There are plenty of fat cats who like Democrats.

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, you mean the same fella [Ken Pollack] who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>

Hate to break this to you, moron, but I mean the same fella whose book  The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was an influential part of the pro-invasion hysteria that the war machine cranked into overtime to build some public support for their designs on Iraq.

<<Gotcha>>

Note to readers:  "Gotcha" in sirs' unique lexicon, seems to be conserv-speak for Holy fucking shit I put my foot in my mouth so deep this time that it's coming out of my ass.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Perhaps they arn't as intrested in polical power as Soros is .

I don't agree with your list either, particularly the John Birch Society, they would never endorse a Republican now would they.

===============================================================================
The Birchers seem to support Ron Paul, according to their website. But they were never a particularly influential bunch. I don't think they have liked any candidate since Barry Goldwater. Perhaps they liked Reagan before he borrowed and borrowed and borrowed some more.

The others already OWN the damn country. Soros is spending money to acquire power that he doesn't have yet.

Why don't you make a list, if you don't like mine?

[sirs]

<<Oh, you mean the same fella [Ken Pollack] who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>

Hate to break this to you, moron, but I mean the same fella whose book  The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was an influential part of the pro-invasion hysteria that the war machine cranked into overtime to build some public support for their designs on Iraq.

Minus of course the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion.  Your problem is, his expertise and intimate understanding on intellgence, trumps your asanine illogical diatribes that Bush lied us into war.  Thus despite the fact he agrees with you that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and that Bush spent too much time focused on the intel that supported invasion, to you he's basically a moron, a collaborator, a Bush toadie, because he dares not come to the same meritless hyperbolic conclusions, you have made clear that you came to from the get go, and nothing was going to change that.....not even facts to the contrary

[Michael Tee]

Quote from sirs on Pollack (exact words, from this thread):
<<Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>

Quote from sirs on Pollack, back-tracking (exact words, from this thread):
<< . . . the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion. >>

Since Pollack supported the invasion, his criticism is hardly that Bush is a war-mongering criminal in flagrant contravention of the Fourth  Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations.  It's kinda like the "criticism" of Hitler, as voiced by some of his generals - - not that he's a criminal fascist who caused unimaginable human pain and suffering, but that he's losing the war.

Common sense tells us that if Pollack was, and remains, a staunch supporter of the idea of invading Iraq, and is furthermore the author of an important and influential book recommending the invasion, he is not about to attack the invasion now as based on lies.  And in fact, even in the excerpt that you yourself posted, Pollack admits Hersh's reports of pressure being exerted on intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to find evidence to justify the coming invasion.

[sirs]

Quote from sirs on Pollack (exact words, from this thread):
<<Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>

Quote from sirs on Pollack, back-tracking (exact words, from this thread):
<< . . . the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion. >>

Since Pollack supported the invasion, his criticism is hardly that Bush is a war-mongering criminal in flagrant contravention of the Fourth  Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations.  

Actually it means, like the vast majority of other rationally minded folks, the intel told him, as well as it did Bush, as well as the UN, as well as did to Clinton & Co, as well as France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., that Saddam did have his stockpiles, was a threat not just to the region, but to long term peaceful stability.  Bush simply did something about it

So unless you can show me a quote of Pollack's that demonstrates his "support of the invasion", vs what he's on record as saying that inspectors should have been given far more time, and that invasion was not the proper course of action at this time, this again would be another Tee attempt at reinterpreting current reality, to fit Tee's template of what has to be, vs what is

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually it means, like the vast majority of other rationally minded folks, the intel told him, as well as it did Bush, as well as the UN, as well as did to Clinton & Co, as well as France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., that Saddam did have his stockpiles, was a threat not just to the region, but to long term peaceful stability.  Bush simply did something about it>>

Hilarious.  What it means in fact is that whatever Clinton was told, believed or failed to believe, he was not convinced of any need to invade Iraq and rejected Cheney and the Zionists' urgings to do so.  Bush, Cheney et al. OTOH found a phony excuse for doing what Clinton was too smart to get involved in.  How this PROVES anything about what intelligence Bush received that he didn't have made to order is something you will have to demonstrate.  Nobody else has been able to do so to date.

<<So unless you can show me a quote of Pollack's that demonstrates his "support of the invasion", vs what he's on record as saying that inspectors should have been given far more time, and that invasion was not the proper course of action at this time, this again would be another Tee attempt at reinterpreting current reality, to fit Tee's template of what has to be, vs what is>>

I just quoted you the TITLE of his fucking book, what more would you want?  Any reference to the book on the internet (and there are dozens of them) says that it argued IN FAVOUR OF the invasion.  Would you really expect a book titled The Case for the Invasion of Iraq to argue AGAINST it?  In view of the title and the unanimous internet description of the book as favouring an invasion of Iraq, that's enough for me.  I'm not gonna buy the fucking book.  You're such a big fan of the guy, why don't YOU buy the fucking book and let us all know if, despite the title, despite the unanimous internet description of it as pro-invasion, somehow it turns out to be AGAINST the invasion.  Only in your crazy world, sirs.  Only in your crazy world.  But keep on dreaming.  Sure beats reality.  Maybe you can dream up a book by Pollack that was against the invasion before the invasion began.