Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
WashPost Columnist: Opponents to Health Care Overhaul Are "Political Terrorists"
Business columnist Steven Pearlstein finds the murderers among us:
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
Later, in a column dedicated to exposing falsehoods in the health care debate, Pearlstein writes:
By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.
And no, he does not mean that that number–which is the one used by President Barack Obama, not incidentally–will almost certainly be an undercount. For more on that, watch Ted Balaker's Reason.tv video, Would ObamaCare Cover Sticker-Shock Treatment?
|8.7.09 @ 10:42AM|#
I'm glad that you read these fuckwits for us, Matt.
If I had to read them every morning, I'd be tempted to put my fist
through my monitor.
Tomcat1066|8.7.09 @ 10:43AM|#
Steven Pearlstein: National Fuckwad trying to earn his "Presidential kneepads".
|8.7.09 @ 10:45AM|#
they've given up any pretense of being the loyal
opposition
Was that word-for-word taken from a neocon article about anti-war
protesters?
|8.7.09 @ 10:47AM|#
they've given up any pretense of being the loyal
opposition
Whatever happened to "dissent is the highest form of
patriotism"?
I love the smell of Congressional desperation in the morning. Feel
the Fear, statist scum!
Abdul|8.7.09 @ 10:47AM|#
I thought questioning the patriotism of one's ideological opponents was supposed to be a right-wing strategy. If the left hated Karl Rove so much, they should stop stealing his best tricks.
Xeones|8.7.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Was that word-for-word taken from a neocon article about
anti-war protesters?
Same shit flung by slightly different monkeys, Johnny.
Oops -- was that racist?
Tomcat1066|8.7.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Xeones: Of course it was since you're obviously opposed to
healthcare "reform" because Obama is black. The fact that it'll
bankrupt the nation has nothing to do with it, therefore your
comment was, indeed, racist.
Please report to the nearest re-education camp for immediate
processing.
spambot|8.7.09 @ 10:55AM|#
The phrase "why do they hate America" is not just for Republicans anymore.
|8.7.09 @ 11:01AM|#
I smell fear. Hmmm, smells sweet.
Not everyone has forgotten HillaryCare and the class of 1994.
Rich|8.7.09 @ 11:01AM|#
"... which is the silly way that people in Washington talk
about federal budgets."
So he did get *something* right.
"If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be
theirs."
Fighting words?
|8.7.09 @ 11:03AM|#
If you express dissent by asking a question like, Gov. Palin, can you please explain how dramatically increasing taxes on oil companies or leaving your small town with a multi-million dollar debt for a hockey rink is small governance with fiscal responsibility?" That is fine with most folks on both sides of the aisle. If you screech, "You're a stupid, uneducated cunt and your daughter is pregnant within months of giving you a tardo grandchild!" That is a problem with all of her party and most of the other party members.
Seward|8.7.09 @ 11:04AM|#
I'm pretty sure that if French government opposed the so-called "health care reform" we'd be seeing efforts to change the menu of the Congress. ;)
Fluffy|8.7.09 @ 11:06AM|#
After the close of the Republican Presidential primary season, I
said to myself:
"I hate Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and the Republican media
establishment, and Mitt Romney and John McCain and the Republican
political establishment, so fucking much that I am going to do
nothing but piss on the GOP and all its members and works for the
rest of my life."
It took the Obamabots 8 measly months to back me into a corner
where I'm forced to defend Glenn Beck.
It's almost unthinkable.
They had to pick the one constructive thing that scumbag Beck has
ever done with his life and declare that it made him a Brownshirt
terrorist. They had to force me to be on his side.
I'm stupefied by this.
Sean W. Malone|8.7.09 @ 11:12AM|#
I still can't figure out the hatred for Glenn Beck. He's not
really where he should be, but he at least seems like he's on the
right track. A far cry better than Hannity or Limbaugh or Olberman
or any of those other idiots.
I'm getting really depressed by all this newspeak though. I also
fear that I live in my own world too much to get a good gauge on
whether or not the majority of Americans are buying it. What does
everyone think?
|8.7.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Fluffy--It burns doesn't it? The left has that special sauce
that makes one recoil at their endless and craven cat
calling.
It's the integrity gene. It makes you defend the people or ideas
who/that shouldn't be defended.
Mike in PA|8.7.09 @ 11:18AM|#
It's still hard to see who comes out the winner in this.
If the media continue to support the democrats in spite of public
opinion, perhaps there will be a backlash.
I fear that this will just further divide people into rooting for
"their team" rather than principles. When that happens, both
political parties win. Even if it makes a few people jump ship, it
coalesces others even more. Which is great for fundraising.
Let's not be coy here. That's what the parties want out of this
debate. And they will get what they want unless people start to see
through it. I'm not optimistic.
|8.7.09 @ 11:24AM|#
I fear that this will just further divide people into
rooting for "their team" rather than principles.
There'll be some of that, but a lot of the people attending these
Dem town halls are registered Dems.
I think a lot of the anger is coming from people who voted for
Obama because they believed his campaign pitch that he would be a
budget-cutting, or at least fiscally responsible, post-partisan
President. Finding out you've been lied makes most people really
angry.
Warty|8.7.09 @ 11:31AM|#
I think a lot of the anger is coming from people who voted
for Obama because they believed his campaign pitch that he would be
a budget-cutting, or at least fiscally responsible, post-partisan
President.
You think? I'm not seeing that at all.
Mike in PA|8.7.09 @ 11:31AM|#
R C, I hope you're right. But right now, the way it's being
played out in the media is a fundraiser's wet dream.
Until the media pick up on the fatc that these people are Americans
and not partisans, I feel it will continue to stay this way.
|8.7.09 @ 11:33AM|#
The reaction to the health care debate form left is just an
extension of what many of us have exopereinced first hand.
How many of you have liberal friends or coworkers who called called
Bush voters "stupid" or "idiots" after the last election, so that
they can rationalize away losing the election. How often have you
heard midwesterners referred to as rubes. When was the last time an
urbanite *didn't* deride your suburban life as shallow and lacking
in insight? How many times have they looked down their noses at
anyone who isn't a fellow traveller?
This isn't to say that a good deal of Bush voters aren't stupid or
that some midwesterners aren't rubes, but it's the condescension,
the sniffing dismissal, the eleitism, snobishness that many of our
liberal collegues display that is the most offensive. The
partisanship is so overwhelming that it stifles any rational debate
all too often.
Conservatives are loath their political opponents just as much, but
I hear the arrogant, smug tone far, far less often in their
derisions than I do on the left.
Wicks Cherrycoke|8.7.09 @ 11:35AM|#
What is incredible to me that the Dems are having their meltdown not even eight months into a Democrat administration, led by what had been an overwhelming popular president, aided by a filibuster-proof Democrat Congress. If they fail under these circumstances, when can they possibly prevail?
|8.7.09 @ 11:38AM|#
What is incredible to me that the Dems are having their
meltdown not even eight months into a Democrat administration, led
by what had been an overwhelming popular president, aided by a
filibuster-proof Democrat Congress. If they fail under these
circumstances, when can they possibly prevail?
If someone's entire personal and political philosophy can be summed
up in the words "give me and give me now", shouldn't we expect them
to fold like a cheap lawn chair when they aren't just given what
they want politically?
|8.7.09 @ 11:39AM|#
Conservatives are loath their political opponents just as
much, but I hear the arrogant, smug tone far, far less often in
their derisions than I do on the left.
Once you've convinced yourself you're the progressive result of
thousands of years of moral and intellectual progress, and thus the
moral and intellectual superior of those who haven't progressed as
far from the Stone Age as you, smug condescension is the order of
the day.
Some Old Italian Guy|8.7.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"WashPost"
Dear Reason Editors. Thank you for your sensitivity.
|8.7.09 @ 11:40AM|#
I think a lot of the anger is coming from people who voted for Obama because they believed his campaign pitch that he would be a budget-cutting, or at least fiscally responsible, post-partisan President.
Or from seniors and others who got bent out of shape about McCain
planning to slash Medicare and tax health benefits.
The Democrats, including Obama, have always run ads and slogans
suggesting that the tiniest change in Medicare means Republicans
want to end it. It's one thing when Democrats expect that
Republicans will be exceptionally honorable and refuse to
politically attack Medicare reimbursement cuts identical to ones
proposed by GWB that were attacked by Democrats then. It's another
when Democrats expect that Republicans not only not attack, but
vote for and provide bipartisan cover for the cuts while at the
same time allowing all the vulnerable Democrats to vote against
them. But it strains credulity when you have people like
Mark Kleiman suggesting that the Democrats deploy their "the
Republicans want to destroy Medicare" rhetoric trope in
favor of Democrats making these cuts. The AARP leadership
may go along with that, but the seniors themselves will rebel, and
are rebelling.
And Fluffy, hell, the GOP has tons of things wrong with it. But I'm
still amazed and stupefied at people like you and others who are
stupefied at how Obama is behaving. He had a voting record. As bad
as McCain is, preferring
the guy who gave this interview to someone with Obama's record
was a no-brainer to me, especially since there was zero chance of
the Democrats losing either house of Congress, and a very good
chance of 60 votes in the Senate.
|8.7.09 @ 11:44AM|#
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their
ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the
health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that
they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan
political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given
up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become
political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the
country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious
domestic problems.
This guy needs an extra-large bottle of (gov't subsidized) smelling
salts.
|8.7.09 @ 11:47AM|#
"Conservatives are loath their political opponents just as much,
but I hear the arrogant, smug tone far, far less often in their
derisions than I do on the left."
I have to agree. The left, for supposedly being for "the little
guy", sure has an elitist-overlord way of showing it.
|8.7.09 @ 11:48AM|#
And- Democrats would never stoop to a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage.
|8.7.09 @ 11:53AM|#
a lot of the people attending these Dem town halls are registered Dems.
What makes you say that? The fact that a lot of them go out of
their way to claim it? "I am in no way affiliated with partisan
interest groups, I live just down the street, I swear!"
|8.7.09 @ 12:02PM|#
P Brooks, absolutely. Dems did it, myself included, during the presidential campaign. The difference now, IMO, is the public's perception that this time, it is reaching dangerous levels physically. It is getting scary to joe average. The nation has been kept in a perpetual state of fear for many years. We are always on the alert for scary things that might be a threat to homeland security. Now the threat to that security is percieved to be from the GOP. I have no idea who, if anyone, is orchestrating this stuff but I believe it's going to result in more sympathy and support for Obama and the dems.
|8.7.09 @ 12:02PM|#
so misleading, so disingenuous
As opposed to the Obama administration, which is telling us that
the economic crisis is caused by our unreformed health care
system?
|8.7.09 @ 12:12PM|#
"Now the threat to that security is percieved to be from the
GOP. I have no idea who, if anyone, is orchestrating this
stuff..."
Brotherben, the national media votes, according to Pew, 75 - 85%
Dem. You really have no idea where this perception comes from?
Mike in PA|8.7.09 @ 12:14PM|#
What makes you say that? The fact that a lot of them go out
of their way to claim it? "I am in no way affiliated with partisan
interest groups, I live just down the street, I swear!"
How else do you suppose someone could ask a question in this forum
without being labeled some astro-turf right-wing pawn? I want them
to know I'm speaking for myself and not some media-imagined
interest group. Shall I show them my voting record before asking a
question?
|8.7.09 @ 12:20PM|#
I actually agree with Krugman and don't believe these protesters to be analogous to Brooks Brothers rioters. For the most part (with exceptions) they're probably just normal people being organized by email lists and motivated by the talk radio and cable blowhards.
|8.7.09 @ 12:23PM|#
I think a lot of the anger is coming from people who voted for Obama because they believed his campaign pitch that he would be a budget-cutting, or at least fiscally responsible, post-partisan President.
I believe such people exist in our populace. But I think they exist
in the broad middle that tends not to get all that politically
noisy.
I'm fairly sure they'll be heard from on Election Day. There's a
few Dems here in Florida that got in on BO's coattails (and on
antiBush feeling). If the GOP can run a few good candidates those
seats will return to the elephant enclosure.
But as for the "townhall" protesters, I think it's a safe bet they
mostly voted for McCain.
But that doesn't mean they don't get to protest patent bullshit.
neither does it justify the kind of language coming from some of
the donkeys.
|8.7.09 @ 12:24PM|#
I have no idea who, if anyone, is orchestrating this stuff
but I believe it's going to result in more sympathy and support for
Obama and the dems.
I kind of doubt that Ben. When a video of some union thug, sorry,
community orgainizer giving a crazy, old tea bagger the bum's rush
from townhall meeting hits youtube -- who do you think most people
are going to sympathize with? Berating and haranguing you
represenatives is not terrorism and few people outside of capitol
hill will believe it is.
Just to add, I really liked this morning's report of "violence" at
a meeting, that appears to be a little scuffle and that the
"violence" was obscured by the dozen outstreched phones filming it.
Our pan-opticon world can be so strange.
|8.7.09 @ 12:42PM|#
bendover, I certainly agree that the media, in many ways, is
supportive of Obama. If you are on the right, and are aware of that
fact, stop giving them ammunition. Stop comparing Obama to the
nazis. Stop saying he palled around with terrorists. If someone
shouts, "kill him" at your rally, correct them immediately. Stop
giving traction to the whackaloons and their conspiracy theories.
When the media coverage is instant, as it is now, try to act with
an awareness that americans don't care much for hooliganism.
Yes it's a free country and we can say whatever we want. Just do it
with an awareness that there are political consequences.
|8.7.09 @ 1:09PM|#
"Berating and haranguing you represenatives is not terrorism and
few people outside of capitol hill will believe it is."
1) Per the article, the "terrorists" are the politicians are
organizers who are willing to spread lies for political gain, not
the individuals who are upset. Reading the article helps.
2) "Berating and haranguing" your representatives inside the town
hall meeting so that they cannot speak is a violation of their
First Amendment rights. Go read about the Heckler's Veto - you
don't have a right to one.
|8.7.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Ben, You are way off on this one. "punch back harder" is coming from the Obama people. Tell the peaceable protester in the emergency room in St. Louis that it is only right wing loons committing violence. I believe the public doesn't like audiences stacked with union thugs either.
|8.7.09 @ 1:13PM|#
"Brotherben, the national media votes, according to Pew, 75 -
85% Dem. You really have no idea where this perception comes
from?"
Hold on now. You have to make up your mind: are there groups of
people showing up to town hall meetings across the country in
displays of outrage or is this all a creation of the biased liberal
media? You can't have it both ways.
|8.7.09 @ 1:15PM|#
Per the article, the "terrorists" are the politicians are organizers who are willing to spread lies for political gain
Look, it's not fair to call the White House and the Congressional
leadership "terrorists."
Chicken Bones of Justice|8.7.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Perhaps the Iranian electorate has inspired the American electorate?
|8.7.09 @ 1:37PM|#
Brotherben, if 99% of the loyal opposition was Lincolnesque in their response to Obama's healthcare proposals and 1% were acting like hooligans, do you really think the reportage would be any different? Please bear in mind the newsreaders love of adopting and perpetuating the "narrative" over and above any counterfactual evidence.
|8.7.09 @ 1:40PM|#
a lot of the people attending these Dem town halls are
registered Dems.
What makes you say that?
Well, these town halls are in Dem districts, are noticed out
through Dem mailing lists, a lot of the people who are upset are
from Dem demographics (minorities, elderly). What makes you think
there aren't any registered Dems pissed off about this?
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|8.7.09 @ 1:42PM|#
What makes you think there aren't any registered Dems pissed off about this?
But...what about the Democrat's history of tight party discipline
for the last few decades?
Huh?
What about that, eh?
|8.7.09 @ 1:44PM|#
Mr. One other thing,
"displays of outrage" can be reported as mob violence or righteous
indignation. The perception can be filtered by the "gatekeepers"
(providers) of the information. Please refer to Matt Welch's 10:05
post.
|8.7.09 @ 1:58PM|#
"Berating and haranguing" your representatives inside the
town hall meeting so that they cannot speak is a violation of their
First Amendment rights.
And you post under a moniker of First Amendment?
Idiot.
Yes, it can be rude and uncivil, and is to be condemned for that.
But it is not un-Constitutional. It is in fact, expressly within
the bounds of the 1st. Now please go back to the schools that
larn'd ya and demand a refund or free remedial civics class.
|8.7.09 @ 1:59PM|#
"Hold on now. You have to make up your mind: are there groups of
people showing up to town hall meetings across the country in
displays of outrage or is this all a creation of the biased liberal
media? You can't have it both ways."
The anti-Obamacare crowds are showing up, but from what I
understand from previous posts in earlier threads, it's the
pro-Obamacare people who have been resorting to violence but the
biased liberal media is implying that it's the anti-Obamacare
people who are being violent.
|8.7.09 @ 2:05PM|#
By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will
cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.
And no, he does not mean that that number-which is the one used by
President Barack Obama, not incidentally-will almost certainly be
an undercount.
Sometimes Matt's attempt to be snarky and going for the understated
jab really kills an oportunity for a good quote.
how about this instead:
"Health care reform that costs 1 trillion dollars is a lie? perhaps
Pearlstein missed it when Obama said it would cost 1 trillion
dollars"
Or hell i don't know i am not a journalist....
|8.7.09 @ 2:07PM|#
Thacker: Funny!
Brotherben: What is wrong with comparing the Obama administration
to national socialists? His brand of organastion, centralised
authority of the executive branch exerting ex-constitutional
influence on the private sector, and setting up snitch on your
neighbor websites all lend well to the comparison. IMO
"willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching
a consensus" - Whenever you find someone wishing to make public
policy a matter of consensus, you know you're dealing w/ a fool or
an enemy... move along.
|8.7.09 @ 2:15PM|#
"they're probably just normal people being organized by email
lists and motivated by the talk radio and cable blowhards."
Thank God those talk radio and cable blowhards are out there and
that the only side we get to hear is not the butt licking Obama
media.
|8.7.09 @ 2:21PM|#
"Tony | August 7, 2009, 12:20pm | #
I actually agree with Krugman"
As Gomer Pile would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"
|8.7.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"And Fluffy, hell, the GOP has tons of things wrong with it. But
I'm still amazed and stupefied at people like you and others who
are stupefied at how Obama is behaving. He had a voting record. As
bad as McCain is, preferring the guy who gave this interview to
someone with Obama's record was a no-brainer to me, especially
since there was zero chance of the Democrats losing either house of
Congress, and a very good chance of 60 votes in the Senate."
I just couldn't bring myself to support a warmonger like McCain.
Not that Obama has been any better on foreign policy. Incidentally,
I didn't vote for Obama either, except in the primary to keep the
Hildebeast from returning to the White House.
Paul|8.7.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Steven Pearlstein: National Fuckwad trying to earn his
"Presidential kneepads".
Earned and already worn out.
Paul|8.7.09 @ 2:46PM|#
If the media continue to support the democrats in spite of
public opinion, perhaps there will be a backlash.
Could be. But it wouldn't be unprecedented. 1994 anyone?
Paul|8.7.09 @ 2:53PM|#
What makes you say that? The fact that a lot of them go out
of their way to claim it? "I am in no way affiliated with partisan
interest groups, I live just down the street, I swear!"
I'm a partisan interest group, Tony. I just happen to be in a group
with a membership roll of one, and I haven't gotten around to
increasing membership.
Paul|8.7.09 @ 2:56PM|#
When is Morris Dees going to show up on NPR claiming that people who oppose Obama's healthcare proposals are members of a "hate group"?
JB|8.7.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Pearlstein is a liar. I wonder if he is getting threatened by
the Obama thugs or just paid off by them.
He says there is no one talking about single-payer when numerous
Democrats are on video talking about how this will lead to
single-payer or they at least hope it will.
I mean WTF. If the Post had any integrity, they would fire him for
outright lies.
|8.7.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Paul,
I don't dispute that, nor do I deny that insurance industry
lobbyists have freedom of speech and assembly. But it's good to
know who's behind things, and to take it for what it is.
Paul|8.7.09 @ 3:43PM|#
I guess the problem I have with always figuring out "who's behind things" can go a little too far. Take any random anti-war rally, and you're going to find a high percentage of people there belong to or are card-carrying members of... some group-- even if those individuals are not there explicitly representing said group. It just seems to be the double-standardness of it all. When conservatives join in a loud, shrill protest, some shadoy cabaal is behind it. When liberals do it, it's the "voice of the people".
Sean W. Malone|8.7.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Holy mother of god, I agree with Tony! [Sort of]
"I don't dispute that, nor do I deny that insurance industry lobbyists have freedom of speech and assembly. But it's good to know who's behind things, and to take it for what it is."
Only... I actually think it should work both ways - And the thing
is, everybody knows that when Pfizer tells you to buy their drug,
you freakin' know that they have a vested interest in selling it to
you! So unless you're completely retarded, you are at least a bit
skeptical and you go consult your doctor (most drugs can't even be
acquired without a doctor anyway)... But when Obama comes down from
on high and says we need his "stimulus" or his health care plan,
Tony fails to consider the source.
It pisses me off to no end to hear that some rich guy at the GOP is
behind this or that, and never EVER that
George Soros, or Ariana Huffington, or Al Gore wants you to believe
their bullshit.
|8.7.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Sean,
But I happen to agree with the causes of Al Gore, etc., and I don't
even know who the fuck George Soros is except one of the right's
favorite bogeymen. But the political positions of Huffington, Gore,
Soros, etc. have little to do with their own economic interests.
They're wealthy people in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy,
among other things, and I don't discern motives other than what
they are saying. What I object to is conflating the self-interest
of certain industries with patriotism and public interest. I mean
what's the message from the right-wing rioters? What are they
trying to accomplish except "raahhh libruls are evil!!"? It's
political gamesmanship backed up by interested industries dressed
up as a policy debate. Except there's no debate, because they don't
want it, they just want their amoral GOP poodles back in power.
|8.7.09 @ 4:32PM|#
Well, since I just found out I am a terrorist, I guess I will
shove a grenade up my ass and go blow up a night club.
And Obama accused the Republicans and other opponents of using
hate-speech, scare tactics and lies. I guess it is all kosher no
matter what you say as long as you support the Beloved Leader and
his Agenda when you say it.
|8.7.09 @ 4:37PM|#
Sean,
But I happen to agree with these douchebag elitist scumsuckers whom
I haven't even bothered to follow the money behind. My hate for the
GOP is my guiding principle so my positions don't really require
any substantive thought on the matter. It is enough for me to know
that the almighty politicians have the best plan for running the
human herd off the cliff.
Love,
Toni
Sean W. Malone|8.7.09 @ 4:59PM|#
And you ruined it Tony!
Wtf.
OF COURSE their positions on taxes and government control
of various aspects of people's lives are in their economic (and
philosophical & political) self interest!!
Are you really that retarded? How can you not even know who George
Soros is?
Fuck man.... FUCK! Jesus, your ignorance is positively astounding.
Rupert Murdoch is half as wealthy as Soros, and you assuredly freak
out about anything he does, but you don't even know who's
behind the nonsense you slurp up everyday? Who the fuck do you
think is going to benefit from new finance regulations? SOROS. Who
do you think is going to benefit from busting up competitive media
(often owned by Murdoch)? SOROS.
You fucking. Twat.
|8.7.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Actually I will take that back. Soros certainly thinks he's
acting in his own economic self-interest in that he believes that
free-market fundamentalism harms everyone economically.
I don't know what your problem with him is though other than being
a funder of liberal causes. He's one of the world's richest men
(wealth producing hero), donates money to drug liberalization
causes, and predicted the 2008 economic collapse. With regard to
his views on media he believes in a rational "open society" in
contrast to Murdoch's preferred method of fomenting ignorance and
pumping propaganda.
|8.7.09 @ 5:18PM|#
But really the only time he's ever mentioned is when some rightwing nut is convinced there's a giant conspiracy to oppress him and he funds it all. This conspiracy usually consists of most of journalism, academia, science, and entertainment, of course. Insane nonsense.
|8.7.09 @ 5:42PM|#
"I don't know what your problem with him is though other than
being a funder of liberal causes."
Hi I'm Toni and I have no clue why people are enraged by elitist
efftards who have their own self interest ahead of the rest of the
world.
I love people who think everyone else is so stupid, that they need
the likes of Soros with his benevolent bigotry to take care of
them.
In fact I'm one of the fools who needs to be told what to do from
on high, and by on high I mean my all powerful lord and savior -
Government
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245