I read that wiki article before you posted it knarls and was also quite impressed with the man, sure he is a financial shark, but isn’t that what you totally free marketeers want right? law of the jungle, victor goes the spoils and all that?

one detail: he helped fund Georgia’s Democratic Revolution, though he says his role has been blown out of proportion

btw – Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it wasn’t just some blanket giveaway, it was a cynical ploy to curry favor amongst the downtrodden and rebellious. And yes, yes, Saddam was a bad man. Was it worth 4000 dead Americans? 40000 wounded? several trillion dollars (or more)? How many Iraqi dead? A few hundred thousand? A few million?
Was it worth it?
No.

TIme for a change and McCain is more of the same.

I think that her appeasment of Alaskan seccessionists (sp) was political suicide federally, but in contrast to Enk, I think that pragmatically is the way to deal with those people – you have to show them that your side has more to offer Alaskans than what would be achieved through secceeding from the USA.

shcb – you say Soros has prbably done “nothing illegal”: I take that as an admission he’s probably ahead of Rove and Cheney on the morality scale. Has he shot anyone in the face?

I like Soros’ methods, from the little I’ve seen on wiki. Sure criminals can give to charity to look good (cops say the Hell’s Angels are evil despite their teddy bears for charity rides, etc. ) The difference is we’re talking a whole new order of magnitude relative to net worth. Soros has given away something like $6 billion of what was an $11 million pot (look it uop in wiki, I forgot that part as my reading comprehension is not so good these days.)

From the wiki article it sounded like Soros was open about his motives (one of which was to prevent Bush from getting elected again at virtually any cost) and was transparent about how what he was funding would be or would not be affected by campaign finance reforms, and I doubt he was blind-sided by any of that. But to call him a very bad person? His bio is fascinating, he sounds like a genious and it looks like his motives are to create a free and more compassionate world. Maybe you think he is bad because those motives are so contrary to current Republican objectives.

Soros’ MO is to fund these smear merchants through a series of foundations each one getting more and more radical. This insulates him to a certain degree. I also didn’t like the way he helped fund campaign finance reform, again not directly, but he funded groups that funded groups that put out adds supporting campaign finance reform. But before he did, he made sure he had a loophole, the 521C’s. In a queer stroke of irony, the Swift Boat Veterans used this device to defeat his guy. But for all that trouble he got a few months of political ads no one else got.

As far as I know he has never done anything illegal in his political antics, I just don’t like his methods.

so you think it is nasty the way Soro’s main method seems to be giving enormous sums of money ($ Billions) to charity and groups seeking a voice in oppressed countries like Thailand and former Soviet states, or , to a far lesser extent, providing funding for legitimate liberal groups in America?

shcb: “nasty” def. = nice

It is becoming apparent that if you say something is bad, it must be good, and vice versa.

Just to check, I went back and looked at a speech by George Soros from 2004 titled “Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush” Wow. It is chock full of advice, assertions, and predictions many hell damn near all of which have turned out to be true.

Here’s an excerpt

President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are – a freedom loving people – not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.

How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 – although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: “Wake up America. Don’t you realize that we are being misled?”

President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.

The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish — if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0928-16.htm

I imagine it was pulled at the request of Obama, and that’s fine. My intention isn’t a misdirection, my intention is to discredit your sources, I may succeed or I may fail in that endeavor, but that is my intention. You see in the old days of ethical journalism there would be some proof, hospital records, something, before legitimate journalists would print something this damaging to innocent folks. There was a code of honor. We expected this kind of thing from the tabloids, that was their business, so we generally ignored them. Now some blogger in his pajamas thumbs through a few photos of Palin, changes the captions, posts it on a site saying this is her when she was 8 months pregnant and bam! We’re off and running. The previously legitimate media on a good day reports that there is story out there saying Palin is the grandmother, on a bad day they just say she is the grandmother.

Who knows, you may be right she may be the grandmother, but it’s up to the journalist to give some legitimate proof. If someone like Palin had to prove her innocence every time someone made an allegation that is all they would get done. If she showed a picture of herself when she was 8 months pregnant and it showed her to be obviously showing you would say “how do we know this is legitimate? Was this picture from an earlier pregnancy?” but you have no problem believing a picture showing her normal with a caption saying she was 7 month along is legitimate. when you are in her position you just ignore these things as best you can and move on.

And bottom line, I don’t like Soros or anything he is associated with. He is a very bad man.

I realize that your line of questioning is simply a mis-direction from the central issue which you fail to acknowledge: the bottom line is that Sarah Palin is not fit to be VP. She is either not to be trusted to present the truth when she perceives it to be in her personal interest to lie or she is cavalier about recklessly endangering even her own baby’s life.

Re Reading skills again: Yes, we are aware of your penchant for looking past what is actually written to find the non-existant “narratives” that support your bias.

Misleading headlines are a different subject (and contrary to you conspiracy theory the actual reason for misleading headlines is normally to sensationalize to sell more papers.) Try to keep to the current issue please.

Also wrong again, as Enk and I (and the author for that matter) do agree that the photos and video are not conclusive. It goes to your reading comprehension again. I clearly stated the photos showed no evidence that the Governor was pregnant. That is not being conclusive of anything other than that the photos provided insufficient evidence to part of the claim. Enk did not say the photos and video were conclusive either. So you are wrong on yet another point and use that erroneous conclusion (that Enk and I don’t agree when in fact we do) in a condescending final sentence.

Finally (and with all the irony of Condi Rice stating Russia could pull out of Georgia as fast as they went in while American troops languish in Iraq long after their original mission(s) were accomplished) you play the sympathy card about the poor baby never knowing for sure who the mother actually is. Low reading comprehension at play again, for the article’s author raised this same point in admonishing Sarah Palin to either provide proof that she is the real mother or, given the suspicion (raised by her own reckless actions during the supposed pregnancy and no visual public record – video or pictures – that she was in fact pregnant) admit that the real mother is Bristol Palin.

The Governor’s recent statment that Bristol is pregnant shifted the balance of probablities to about 20 or 40 to 1 that Trig is Sarah’s daughter, the remaining uncertanty could be lifted if there evolves a verifiable public record that the timeline of Bristol’s recent pregnancy negates the remaining doubt.

Quite a sideshow for a VP pick isn’t it?

At least we are pretty sure of the answer to the question in the article’s main theme: Governor Palin is an incredibly poor choice for VP because of her demonstrated poor judgement and confused priorities where she has actually endangered her own baby’s life for her own political ambitions.

I saw the pics, I suppose knarls did, but you didn’t. Why is it so incredible that two different people come to two different conclusions? I said the photos were inconclusive. Her actions were odd and at variance with the possibility that she had a real baby in her tummy. For instance, lets just run this hypothetical for a moment (lets give the conspiracy folks the first turn thru the logic machine).

A) she is covering for her knocked up, out of school unmarried teenage daughter (who hasn’t been seen in months).

B) she is pregnant, in Texas, with a downs syndrome fetus and its a premie, her water breaks so she flies 14 hours+ to get home (also stopping to deliver a speech, where is that on youtube?)

A
So gov Palin (wearing some kind of pillow prosthesis?) is in Texas when she hears that her daughter in hiding is going into labor. Gov Palin declares my water has broken! And then heads to the airport (bypassing some of the best hospitals and neonatal care units on the planet). She then flies to Denver (I think?) and then goes someplace and delivers a political speech. Does she then head to the hospital? Nope. She goes back to the airport, back through security, boards another plane and flies to Alaska. Does she go to a hospital in Anchorage? Nope. She hops in her husband’s car and drives almost an hour away to go to her private doctor’s clinic. Gosh a 13 to 14 hour travel day. After your water broke and you are in labor. But no biggee as she wasn’t really carrying the baby. Palin does exactly what one might do if you were carrying a pillow instead of a baby: you avoid any medical care other than ‘your’ doctor, who is also in on the scam. Palin is back at work three days later.

verdict: tricky to pull off, and quite involved, but she certainly makes a bunch of bizarre moves right at the end there that would support theory A, photo evidence is inconclusive

probability: low but no where near zero

B
You are pregnant with your fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child who isn’t full term yet. So you’ve flown in your last month (a big no-no). You are in Texas. In a big city. Your water breaks and labor begins. Instead of heading for the hospital you go to the airport as scheduled, go thru security, board a plane for Denver, take a car to make a speech, make speech, go back to the airport, back thru security, on a much longer plane ride to Anchorage, where you once again don’t go to the hospital instead you drive almost an hour to get to your local clinic and doc. Thankfully after all this the baby is delivered. Palin is back at work three days later.

verdict: taking such stupid risks disqualifies this person to be vice president or president. She could have killed the baby and/or herself. I don’t need someone with such colossally poor judgement a 72 year old heartbeat away from the hardest job on the planet. Photo evidence is inconclusive.

probability: high, but sweet jesus you are a stupid risktaking ignoramus

so
either, A she lied about the whole damn thing (not likely), or B she lacks basic good sense or didn’t give a crap (mb she just prayed extra hard!)

answer: B is the more likely scenario, but neither has been proved conclusively

hence: inconclusive (I think this is what knarls means when he questions your reading level. I am certain that it isn’t stupidity, it is willful wishful ignorance)

The problem with this kind of attack is at some point an insensitive soul will ask this child who his mother really is, ten, twenty years from now? Who knows. And given his disability it will be hard for him to understand. Sad.

The article was good because it presented evidence for the accusations (photo’s and videos which showed no evidence she was pregnant and her actions which were 100% contrary to normal good judgement and accepted doctor’s advice for pregnant women) and invited her to provide some proof that it was actually her son or come clean and admit she was the grandmother. The author caveats that either way i.e. if she does the right thing now and clarifies the matter, it will still indicate her horrendous lack of judgement either for lying originally or for endangering her own baby. A no win situation for Sarah Palin. More important, it is a no win situation of her own making.

The theme of the article was that a person foolish enough to get into such simple “no win” situations is NOT qualified to be VP.

people write the content, not some all powerful liberal billionaire

it still goes to judgement – flying to Alaska after your water broke, a premie, a special needs infant. Every mother I have spoken to thinks this is batsh!t crazy.

Will a October Surprise still work at this point?
So you neocons fake a Iranian attack on a US ship, then what?
Will it be enough? Will you sacrifice a city? Two?

Anything to win seems their motto: expect anything.

…or, Soros had no problem with people on his site spreading malicious rumors as long as they were hurting the other candidate, but when his guy took the high road, he had no choice but to pull those pages because it was going to start to hurt his guy. There is also the aspect of putting it out there and then pulling it back after the rumor takes on a life of its own so later you can say, “we pulled those pages almost immediately after we found out the truth”. Notice Knarly is still parroting what he read there. It’s kind of like an attorney saying something that he knows will be struck down, the judge tells the jury to disregard, but they heard what they heard, it’s still in the back of their head.

The father of Bristol Palin’s unborn child, Levi Johnston (18), may have unwittingly made matters worse for the Governor when he described himself to the press in frank terms as a, “f—in’ redneck.” Mr. Johnston issued a blanket warning that he will, “Kick ass,” if anyone questions him over the pregnancy of Bristol Palin. In a candid interview with the New York Post, Levi Johnston stated, “I don’t want children.” The couple has just announced plans for a December wedding with the baby due to be born later that month possibly as early as Christmas.
…
That is not all of the troubling information about the private life of Governor Palin. Darker suspicions are now swirling around Governor Palin’s youngest child, a four month-old daughter named, “Trig,” who has Downs Syndrome. The Governor’s latest pregnancy was not announced until March even though she had not appeared to be pregnant. Over an extended period of time, Bristol Palin had been incommunicado reportedly recovering from a bout of mononucleosis that had become intractable.

After the surprise delivery in April, Governor Palin resumed her official duties in only three days. The unusual circumstances of the stealth pregnancy and extended absence of her teenage daughter have led to a plethora of rumors and public speculation that Bristol gave birth to Trig, and the Governor covered up the embarrassment with an elaborate subterfuge…

The point is she did something highly unusual and downright dumb. Flying in the last month or so is usually not wise for pregnant ladies. Flying on several different flights, making a speech, etc after her water broke… with her Down’s baby… it goes to judgement. Very poor judgement.

No way do we need more rwnjs like this at the wheel. 8 years of dumbya and our country is in seriously bad shape. And McBush’s big foreign policy initiative is to bomb Iran?

But your reply is… this is all George Soros’s fault?

Look I’ll take a moment to explain how dKos works. afaik There are writer/reporters/investigators who work with editors to write the opinion pieces that go on the site’s home page. There are also lists of links, some funny, some serious, that are thrown on the home page by the same folks. You can become a member (make up a name and a pswd, done) and write your own diary (basically a mini site within a site that you write) and other folks can read it if they are interested. People also add details or images or information to diaries and stories by submitting them to the author who weighs their content and decides what goes in his or her mini-site. The other half of the viewers role is to comment and recommend or not the diary (or basically any page or comment you see on line). If many people read it, and rec it, then it may be placed in a sidebar of recommended diaries. Conversely if your article is full of bull, expletives, and outright buffoonery, people give you the virtual thumbs down and eventually some admin might come by and either give you a warning to stop the stupidity or have your privileges yanked or content deleted. mb this is automated, tho i doubt it. The point is, people drive what lives or dies on the site. There is plenty of profane crap as anyone can say pretty much anything (as long as it isn’t threats or outright hate speech, but the crowd will censor gibbering trolls pretty quickly). There are plenty of trolls, pumas and posers who come and go.

The Palin story is important. This tyro is a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most difficult job on the planet. It goes to judgement: either she hid her daughter’s pregnancy (doubtful and silly, tho funny) or she lacked the judgement not to fly after her water broke (suspicious but not outside of the realms of the possible – can we see a DNA test please?) She risked her baby’s life and possibly her own for partisan political purposes. I mean how disappointed would the audience have been to hear “sorry the AK gov can’t come tonight, she’s having her baby right now!” awwwwwwwwww

The whole Sesesh thing is just hilarious icing on the sh!t cake that is McBush’s first Executive Decision. Hello? You already have the dumb white guy vote!