The drive-by media is having a field day running liberal George Soros-funded anti-war “study” as hard news.:mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

God, they're beyond pathetic already. :rolleyes:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/23/ap-runs-soros-funded-anti-war-study-as-hard-news/

I mean, c'mon, would you believe ANYTHING *this* guy has to say?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1521514268_665388b999_o.jpg

"Study: False statements preceded war"

Yeah, no shit.

"Study"--funded by Soros.
No surprise. :rolleyes:

So did this study just make up all those claims? No wonder why brainwashed political people hate Youtube and the internet, because we can see politicians talk out their asses and flat out lie to us, using their own words against them.

- N

I mean, c'mon, would you believe ANYTHING *this* guy has to say?



He does not need to "say" anything sandy. The report looked at the press releases and speeches given by the Bush Administration leading up to the war. Many of which have been proven to be false. In short, Bush and his administration did all the 'saying'.

If you don't like Soros' report, don't read it then. You can call it lies, but I've already talked about this before. Go ahead and read Rep. Henry Waxman's report "Iraq on the Record" that already lists hundreds of misleading statements or outright lies by the Bush administration, and he only kept tab up till the beginning of 2004 when he issued the report.

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp

- N

In short, Bush and his administration did all the 'saying'.

:D

Curse the Internets!

- N

:D

Curse the Internets!

- N

And curse the media for being there to record and file away all of their statements for later viewing. It's not as if they were there saying 'you make lies 100 now!' (old WoW joke)..

:p

How does the "funding" imply that the study is false? Why not evaluate the study based on its own merits, listing the problems with methodology, data analyses, conclusions, etc.

To conclude that the study is wrong because you disagree with the politics of the person who funded it is an embarrassing fallacy of logic.

How does the "funding" imply that the study is false? Why not evaluate the study based on its own merits, listing the problems with methodology, data analyses, conclusions, etc.

To conclude that the study is wrong because you disagree with the politics of the person who funded it is an embarrassing fallacy of logic.

It's all she has.

You don't really think she's going to dispute the facts do you?

I haven't actually read the study. I only know the gist of it, which is "Bush lied...." and then "the media repeated it without question or inquiry," etc.

There might actually be problems with the study itself that Sandy could exploit for a valid argument against it, but without actually synthesizing an objective analysis, she'll never know.

I'm actually hoping she takes this to heart and gives it a look over and applies critical thought to it.

Read the Waxman report for any doubts. Predates this by 4 years too.

- N

The media, remember when they actually looked for stuff ?..

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1599226&postcount=22

Soros brags that his goal in life is to destroy W. He funds a "study" to make W look stupid/bad. What's not to get here? :confused:

He needs a study to make Bush look stupid/bad?

Too bad there isn't much of any comparison between the two wars, aside from the fact that we shouldn't have been there.

He needs a study to make Bush look stupid/bad?

Well, Soros already has the media on his side against W. I think he should spend some of his billions fixing his face instead of hounding W.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1521514268_665388b999_o.jpg

Despite your accusations of bias, the The Center For Public Integrity also investigates Soros.

The Center's Coverage of George Soros's Political Activity
Despite their previous connections, the Center documented Soros' political donations during the 2004 political elections as a part of its "Silent Partners" project, which won an Online Journalism Association award for its reporting on the "527" groups that bypassed campaign finance disclosure regulations to funnel millions of dollars to both candidates[17].[wikipedia]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2447

Well, Soros already has the media on his side against W. I think he should spend some of his billions fixing his face instead of hounding W.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1521514268_665388b999_o.jpg

Personal attack

Well, Soros already has the media on his side against W. I think he should spend some of his billions fixing his face instead of hounding W.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2166/1521514268_665388b999_o.jpg

You sound jealous that he is so rich. And don't be so vain.

The Center For Public Integrity investigates anyone and everyone who is involved with the public office, including Soros. If it had been a democrat in power and such an investigation had taken place, you'd be crowing louder than anyone. You have this notion that Republicans should never be criticised or investigated. Guess what Sandy.. that wonderful and free democracy you live in does allow NGO's to investigate Government officials to see if they are lying or not. And politicians lie. It's what they do and Bush and his administration are no better or worse than anyone else.

Personal attack

What? :confused: I was saying what he should do. I did not personally attack anyone here. :confused:

Are you serious? :confused:

Your criticisms of Soros are just personal attacks, do you realize that?

Your criticisms of Soros are just personal attacks, do you realize that?

I dont really think Sandy even knows what shes writing half the time she writes it. :)

I guess we are supposed to react in horror at his name. He has done some great things fighting the commies in the USSR and eastern Europe. If he uses his wealth to fact-check our lier in chief, that's a valuable public service. Soros may have funded this study, but given the nature of this organization, accusations of bias are completely unfounded.

Ethics must be reintroduced to public service to restore people’s faith in government. Without such faith, democracy cannot flourish. [The Center's] ambitious agenda is filling a desperate need.
—Walter Cronkite

Your criticisms of Soros are just personal attacks, do you realize that?

Are you serious??? People on this board are mocking/slandering/libelling W on a daily basis while we are at war and you say I am personal attacking? :confused:

Are you serious??? People on this board are mocking/slandering/libelling W on a daily basis while we are at war and you say I am personal attacking? :confused:

legitamant critcism of bush is not the same as you saying soros is ugly

and boy, Has he given us a lot to criticise about. Note that there is only one thread on his incoherency.

Are you serious??? People on this board are mocking/slandering/libelling W on a daily basis while we are at war and you say I am personal attacking? :confused:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are breaking Sciforum rules. Only that you haven't presented anything substantial about Soros. And yes, we do indeed personally attack Mr. Bush all the time, but we also try to present a rational supported argument sometimes too.

Forum Rules, Regulations and Recommendations - - Version 2.3

Be Polite and Respectful

No Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems

No Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

No Goading, flaming and trolling

Forum Rules, Regulations and Recommendations - - Version 2.3

Be Polite and Respectful

No Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems

No Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

No Goading, flaming and trolling

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Forum Rules, Regulations and Recommendations - - Version 2.3

Be Polite and Respectful

No Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems

No Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

No Goading, flaming and trolling

dude you just need to eat paczki and chill

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are breaking Sciforum rules. Only that you haven't presented anything substantial about Soros. And yes, we do indeed personally attack Mr. Bush all the time, but we also try to present a rational supported argument sometimes too.

Ok. I'll try this again. Soros has said his goal in life is to destroy President Bush. Sore-@ss is so mad that W won (twice!!) despite his pouring millions into defeating him, that he will say/do ANYTHING to hurt him. :mad:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

Do you think people paid to to “research” by Soros and for Soros are likely to deliver unbiased findings? C'mon. You're smarter than this.:rolleyes:

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/?s=soros

LOVE the Harry Reid video. :D

Ok. I'll try this again. Soros has said his goal in life is to destroy President Bush. Sore-@ss is so mad that W won (twice!!) despite his pouring millions into defeating him, that he will say/do ANYTHING to hurt him. :mad:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

Do you think people paid to to “research” by Soros and for Soros are likely to deliver unbiased findings? C'mon. You're smarter than this.:rolleyes:

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/?s=soros

LOVE the Harry Reid video. :D

the statistical evidence is there that it is probable that election fraud was commited in favor of bush in florida in 2000 and ohio in 2004 probabilty of it happening the way it did against is less than 1/(3,200,000*3,200,000)

According to your source, what he actually said was:

he stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 "is the central focus of my life". . . "a matter of life and death." "America under Bush," he said, "is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is." Claiming that "the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists," Soros accuses the Bush administration of following a "supremacist ideology" in whose rhetoric he claims to hear echoes from his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' " he explains, "it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (The enemy is listening). My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me."

That's so true. But he didn't say he would do anything, such as lie. His motivations seem sincere. In other words, he's not looking to bring Bush down for his own political career, just on principle.

Do you think people paid to to “research” by Soros and for Soros are likely to deliver unbiased findings? C'mon. You're smarter than this.

But it's not Soros' own organization. It's an institution known for it's impartiality. If they were biased in favor of Soros, why would report on him in a negative way as well?

.... But he didn't say he would do anything, such as lie. His motivations seem sincere. In other words, he's not looking to bring Bush down for his own political career, just on principle.

Do you honestly think he's going to say he would lie? :confused: He twisted that "report" to make W look bad. Anyone who reads it can see that. He wants W down because he's SOOOO p!ssed off that he spent millions of his own money and he failed. Twice. :roflmao:

Do you honestly think he's going to say he would lie? :confused: He twisted that "report" to make W look bad. Anyone who reads it can see that. He wants W down because he's SOOOO p!ssed off that he spent millions of his own money and he failed. Twice. :roflmao:

Like I said before, you do not need a study to make bush look bad. Just read the newspaper and look and look at his approval ratings. :D

Right now, Bush is at 32% approval, 66% dissapproval, and 2% undecided.

Do you honestly think he's going to say he would lie? :confused: He twisted that "report" to make W look bad. Anyone who reads it can see that. He wants W down because he's SOOOO p!ssed off that he spent millions of his own money and he failed. Twice. :roflmao:

calm down and eat a paczki it will do you good. maybe it will make you more understanding of other cultures

calm down and eat a paczki it will do you good. maybe it will make you more understanding of other cultures

God dammit!! I hate when my own countrymen (Americans) say that America is the best country in the world when they have not even been out of America and seen the world!!! :mad: Now that is pathetic.

God dammit!! I hate when my own countrymen (Americans) say that America is the best country in the world when they have not even been out of America and seen the world!!! :mad: Now that is pathetic.

i have been out of the country twice and i have never said america is the best country?

How does the "funding" imply that the study is false? Why not evaluate the study based on its own merits, listing the problems with methodology, data analyses, conclusions, etc.

To conclude that the study is wrong because you disagree with the politics of the person who funded it is an embarrassing fallacy of logic.Agreed. Now remember that the next time we're debating global warming and every study I post is shot down as "funded by big oil".

Do you think people paid to to “research” by Soros and for Soros are likely to deliver unbiased findings? C'mon. You're smarter than this.

He twisted that "report" to make W look bad.

Do explain. They're Bush's own words, afterall. And again, if you don't trust that study, then read the Waxman Report that predates this by 4 years.

- N

Agreed. Now remember that the next time we're debating global warming and every study I post is shot down as "funded by big oil".

At least yours get posted. EVERY TIME I post a story that bunks global hot air I get warned/threatened/mocked/flamed. It's just not worth it anymore. :rolleyes:

Now remember that the next time we're debating global warming and every study I post is shot down as "funded by big oil". You are dealing with opposite logical directions.

In the global warming cases, the big oil funding is used to explain the promulgation of discredited findings.

In Soros case, the biased funding is used to attack otherwise creditable findings.

To draw a better parallel, discredit the study's findings, and then explain their problems by pointing to their funding.

You are dealing with opposite logical directions.
Ice,
It's the exact same situation. No one ever bothers point out any flaws in studies that point up the flaws in global warming theory beyond vague mumbling about "big oil".

Ice,
It's the exact same situation. No one ever bothers point out any flaws in studies that point up the flaws in global warming theory beyond vague mumbling about "big oil".

Though I'm not going to bother to cite a specific example, the usual pattern is a few outliers have opinions that are contrary to what the overwhelming majority of others in their respective fields think is true. These outliers find their status/credibility elevated by being funded by astroturf thinktanks who find their dissent very convenient.

They are virtually always seen for just what they are; props being used to try and convince the ignorant that there is controversy when there actually isn't.

No one ever bothers point out any flaws in studies that point up the flaws in global warming theory beyond vague mumbling about "big oil". Oh baloney. People go into enormous detail during extensive arguments over those studies, without ever mentioning their funding. That's been shown and linked and emphasized to you right here on this forum. Technical critique and discussion and argument is far more common than mumbling about "big oil".

The funding comes in when the pattern of lousy research and poor argument nevertheless getting wide promotion is connected to the funding sources. But the establishment of the lousiness and poverty has come first.

The opposite here. First debunk the study, then point to the funding, to follow the global warming/big oil pattern.

George Soros has been using millions of his billions to fund some of the most dishonest anti-war agitprop of the past few years. He funds MoveOn, the group that smeared Gen. David Petraeus. He funds the anti-war marchers. He funds the shills over at Media Matters. Soros has made it his life’s work to destroy the Bush administration in the middle of a war. He’s a truly despicable character...:mad:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/mccains-connection-tooro/

i have been out of the country twice and i have never said america is the best country?

No, i was agreeing with you and contradicting sandy. I'm on your side! :(

Yet they never manage to name these better countries...

Yet they never manage to name these better countries...

Malaysia. Singapore. Australia.Canada. New Zealand.

you live in which of those?

Lived in Malaysia, Singapore, Australia .
I base my assumption on quality of living, eyewitness reports from the USA, and general statistics.

America is the best place in the world to live. :yay:

Just read a new disgusting story about Soros saying he viewed with enthusiasm the prospect that a coming recession could seriously weaken the U.S. :mad:

"I'm not looking for a worldwide recession, I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the United States in particular and a shift in favor of the developing world, particularly China" said Soros. :mad:

I wish W would deport this treasonist/traitor POS. :mad:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59903

No, i was agreeing with you and contradicting sandy. I'm on your side! :(

thought that was the case just coverering my six

America is the best place in the world to live. :yay:

prove it

Just read a new disgusting story about Soros saying he viewed with enthusiasm the prospect that a coming recession could seriously weaken the U.S. :mad:

"I'm not looking for a worldwide recession, I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the United States in particular and a shift in favor of the developing world, particularly China" said Soros.

I wish W would deport this treasonist/traitor POS.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59903

You really will not tolerate opinions contrary to your own will you? In your time on this forum, I've never seen you do anything but post dogma. When your dogma is challenged, you ignore evidence to the contrary of your position, and go right on linking to stories of questionable accuracy on websites that have no credibility. You seem to be completely incapable of reconsidering your position on any issue. I assume because you are always certain of being right? No one is always right.

What has Soros done to deserve deportation? What has he done that makes him worse than Rupert Murdoch? I think Murdoch is a bastard who runs a 24/7 propaganda newschannel. You don't see me calling for him to be deported do you?

One of the things that actually does make this country better than many is the first amendment. That includes the freedom to criticize the U.S. Intolerance of dissent is un-American.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3199/lolcatrenderer2aspxtopbup0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/8809/142701tr0qj4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Just read a new disgusting story about Soros saying he viewed with enthusiasm the prospect that a coming recession could seriously weaken the U.S.

"I'm not looking for a worldwide recession, I'm looking for a significant shift of power and influence away from the United States in particular and a shift in favor of the developing world, particularly China" said Soros.

I wish W would deport this treasonist/traitor POS.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59903

How dare he want the developing world to join the world market!:rolleyes:

I really doubt the validity of that site Sandy. From the article you posted from WND:

Soros, speaking to reporters in Davos, accused Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke of acting in a "panicky way," cutting rates as much as .75 percentage points this week, according to the Financial Times.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59903



But..

Earlier this week, billionaire investor George Soros told the BBC it was going to be difficult for the UK and US to avoid a recession, even after the Fed's dramatic rate cut.

But Mr Soros said he supported the Fed's move.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7206125.stm



Hmmmm... which should I believe. The BBC or WND? ... Decisions decisions.. :rolleyes:

So you think he should be deported for voicing what anyone with half a brain can see?

What do you think would happen to Soros if he was in Iran or any other country where free speech is not tolerated like it is here?

Where else would a treasonist/traitor be allowed to spew his venom against/plot to destroy a sitting president during war time? Only here. W should deport his sorry @ss.:(

The BBC is leftwing propaganda. WND is the truth.

What do you think would happen to Soros if he was in Iran or any other country where free speech is not tolerated like it is here?

Where else would a treasonist/traitor be allowed to spew his venom against/plot to destroy a sitting president during war time? Only here. W should deport his sorry @ss.:(

The BBC is leftwing propaganda. WND is the truth.

once again you have shown no understanding of what treason entails. BBC is a respected news source. world net daily is a laughingstock so natrually in your mind the BBC must liberal and WND be a bastion of truth.

What do you think would happen to Soros if he was in Iran or any other country where free speech is not tolerated like it is here?

Where else would a treasonist/traitor be allowed to spew his venom against/plot to destroy a sitting president during war time? Only here. W should deport his sorry @ss.:(

The BBC is leftwing propaganda. WND is the truth.

If that were indeed the case Sandy, then WND would not be citing the BBC in their story.

You bitch and moan about Iran and their lack of free speech and how terrible it is, but here you are ranting that he should be deported for daring to speak out about your President. Seriously Sandy, I don't know whether you are putting on an act or whether you really are unaware of just how downright hypocritical you sound.

What do you think would happen to Soros if he was in Iran or any other country where free speech is not tolerated like it is here?

Where else would a treasonist/traitor be allowed to spew his venom against/plot to destroy a sitting president during war time? Only here. W should deport his sorry @ss.:(

The BBC is leftwing propaganda. WND is the truth.

What a pity our government can't be more like that of Iran.

You say the U.S. is the greatest place to live, but you dislike the freedom that makes it unique. I'll bet you'd like to make it illegal to burn the U.S. flag as well.

What a pity our government can't be more like that of Iran.

You say the U.S. is the greatest place to live, but you dislike the freedom that makes it unique. I'll bet you'd like to make it illegal to burn the U.S. flag as well.

I don't dislike the freedom, I DESPISE those who abuse it. People like Soros, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, etc..

I have no problem with anyone burning the flag as long as they wrap themselves in it first.

I don't dislike the freedom, I DESPISE those who abuse it. People like Soros, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, etc..

I have no problem with anyone burning the flag as long as they wrap themselves in it first.

than you have a problem with america. you do not understand what freedom is

There's no abuse going on here, except the abuse W has given to our laws.

I don't dislike the freedom, I DESPISE those who abuse it. People like Soros, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, etc..

You mean you despise people who say things that you do not agree with. You've made this clear from the very beginning.

I have no problem with anyone burning the flag as long as they wrap themselves in it first.

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5669/emotrimshotdf5.gif (http://imageshack.us)

I don't dislike the freedom, I DESPISE those who abuse it. People like Soros, Randi Rhodes, Michael Moore, etc..

I have no problem with anyone burning the flag as long as they wrap themselves in it first.

So they are only abusing their freedom when they say something you do not agree with? Do you think 'freedom' should mean everyone thinks just like you and not doing so will mean deportation or imprisonment? It is amusing to see how you really do not understand what freedom actually is. Actually scratch that, it's kind of sad really.

So they are only abusing their freedom when they say something you do not agree with? Do you think 'freedom' should mean everyone thinks just like you and not doing so will mean deportation or imprisonment? It is amusing to see how you really do not understand what freedom actually is. Actually scratch that, it's kind of sad really.

Allodaxaphobia - Fear of the opinions of other people
could this explain it