hbo's "newsroom"

[meazza]

Well, I guess that means Birdogs values coincide with MEGA PROFITS for the .00001% at the expense of the middle class

 

Let's give bd a few hours to search for an explanation on motherjones or similar sites

[birdog1960]

What's deliciously ironic is that Soros was a big reason for Black Wednesdays horrific decimation of the British Pound, in which he pocketed or dare I say PROFITED (such a dirty word for liberals) over a billion dollars in the deal.

 

Instead of steadily building up a position in September of 1992, Soros told his lieutenants to "go for the jugular."

 

As a result of his well-intended virtuous action of shorting the pound and profiting over a billion dollars was the forced action of the British to raise interest rates to save their currency, in which it led to higher interest rates for loans for cars, homes etc. for middle class people all across the nation.

 

He is such a good guy

 

lol

might the british monetary policy at the time have had something to do with this? or are you surmising it was an inside job? and a billion dollars? how much do you think the brits have spent supporting our forays into the middle east?

[meazza]

might the british monetary policy at the time have had something to do with this? or are you surmising it was an inside job? and a billion dollars? how much do you think the brits have spent supporting our forays into the middle east?

 

The same way that Mitt Romney decimated badly managed companies for profit.

 

See the irony?

[WorldTraveller]

might the british monetary policy at the time have had something to do with this? or are you surmising it was an inside job? and a billion dollars? how much do you think the brits have spent supporting our forays into the middle east?

Nice try, but that still doesn't take the fact away from Soros precipitating the panic sheared decline of the pound that fateful wednesday, in which he PROFITED over a billion dollars at the expense of the middle class.

 

 

ooooh, I kinda like using these left-wing tactics, kinda fun. lol

[meazza]

Nice try, but that still doesn't take the fact away from Soros precipitating the panic sheared decline of the pound that fateful wednesday, in which he PROFITED over a billion dollars at the expense of the middle class.

 

 

ooooh, I kinda like using these left-wing tactics, kinda fun. lol

 

So when a vulture capitalist takes a badly run company and makes it better by outsourcing and reallocating capital, it's bad.

 

When an old man causes havoc and shorts the market, it's good.

[Rob's House]

Well, I guess that means Birdogs values coincide with MEGA PROFITS for the .00001% at the expense of the middle class

Birddog's already got his. If the rest of us have to forego our opportunity for upward mobility to further his ideology it's an acceptable sacrifice.

[WorldTraveller]

So when a vulture capitalist takes a badly run company and makes it better by outsourcing and reallocating capital, it's bad.

 

When an old man causes havoc and shorts the market, it's good.

Oh come on now, be fair to BD, he's more morally aligned with Mr. Soros' , you know, because he's so well-disposed

[meazza]

Oh come on now, be fair to BD, he's more morally aligned with Mr. Soros' , you know, because he's so well-disposed

 

I was being fair. I did tell him he was entertaining right?

[birdog1960]

So when a vulture capitalist takes a badly run company and makes it better by outsourcing and reallocating capital, it's bad.

 

When an old man causes havoc and shorts the market, it's good.

soros isn't running for president.

 

i don't like big money running the show here any more than you. i suspect i like it less. soros, despite his faults, is on the right side of most issues, in my opinion. without him, the aca would likely not be law and rupert murdoch and people like him would still be dominating the media. i'm not an absolutist. i'll take that trade off.

[meazza]

soros isn't running for president.

 

No but he's trying to influence the presidential election just like any other wealthy individual who has strong political leanings.

 

i don't like big money running the show here any more than you. i suspect i like it less. soros, despite his faults, is on the right side of most issues, in my opinion. without him, the aca would likely not be law and rupert murdoch and people like him would still be dominating the media. i'm not an absolutist. i'll take that trade off.

 

I think it's inevitable that money will run the show and any restrictions will probably have unintended consequences.

 

Rupert Murdoch you say? Surely you don't see the bias in hollywood and everywhere else? As far as I know, I don't think I've seen many conservative view points on TV apart from Fox and the right leaning publications which aren't popular (most people read NYT and don't read any conservative blogs).

 

Once again, your arrogance is over the top. You said, he's on the right side of most issues according to you. Understand that there are a lot of people who disagree with you and have valid reasons for disagreeing with you.

Edited July 20, 2012 by meazza

[OCinBuffalo]

so the koch's are selflessly funding the tea party out of patriotism and the good feeling this "grassroots" organization brings them? no quid pro quo? nothing expected as roi? historically, they've always acted so selflessly. this would be right in character. whatever helps you sleep at night...

Yep. I haven't seen anybody be directed to do anything, by anybody. It simply doesn't work that way. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? Ideas come from individuals. They are never from "the leadership". This is a group of people whose belief in the superiority of the individual is only surpassed by their hated for your collectivist nonsense. Why would they contradict a core belief, and go along with "orders" from the Kochs?

 

Again, your false mapping is on display. You really can't comprehend that the Koch's recognized a good model, invested in it, and had the good sense to stay the F out of its way? That's the text book definition of a "good investor". These guys know not to F with good, look how successful they are. All their money does is make things go faster, as any sound investment in a "start up" should. Money should never be the reason the model works. As we've seen, money is the only reason things like ACORN work, and when you take it away, they fail. The TEA party was going to work no matter what.

 

The TEA party model isn't homogenous. Again, why would a group of people who hate the "one-size-fits-all" government idiocy you espouse subscribe to it in some national model driven by a few assclowns? That's what you do, and what they hate. Each group has done what makes sense for them with whatever money they were able to raise.

 

You know, I would try to make an analogy to open-source software, but, you probably wouldn't understand the fundamentals of that either.

he stands for the core principles of the left. he supports those principles with his money. his money affords him access and influence, same as any big donor (and worse since the citizen's united scotus ruling). these are facts of life in our current political system. no way around it.

 

in contrast, i don't believe the koch's want a bunch of grassroots, loosely connected, unbeholden everymen running the country. it doesn't serve their interests. there money is there to buy influence in a party that supposedly openly rejects such arrangements.

The Koch's don't get to determine the direction of the TEA party any more or any less than everyman does. A particular email from a housewife in Iowa comes to mind. That single email has had massive effect on things, more than all the money that has been raised. Now, was she a plant? Again, the Kochs joined the TEA party. The TEA party will never join the Kochs. Again, you don't seem to be able to comprehend this simple difference in organizational structure and methodolgy. The TEA party wouldn't be any fun for anyone, if it was taking orders from "central command". It simply doesn't work that way. The only thing that could kill the TEA party? Forcing it to work that way.

see my earlier response to this same point. i'm under no illusions about soros. the difference is that his goals and beliefs and mine coincide mostly. i'd be willing to bet that the koch's and many tea party members don't.

Most TEA party members don't even know who the F they are, and the rest don't care. EDIT: But, if they are the guys who paid for the pizza? Then great, thanks....now let's get back to work.

 

The TEA party is as much an intellectual exercise at it is anything else. That's what makes it fun, and worth the time. That's why you can't make a liberal TEA party....because your ideology is about the few telling the many what to do, because they are all "idiots" and you know better, and because you and the rest of "the few" possess the rare "morality" to have compassion for them, don't you?

 

In contrast, the many are what makes the TEA party go. 10k minds working a single problem....it's a scary good thing, and it's something you will never see. How sad for you. You can't accomplish this, because you don't value each of those minds. You only value them if they are willing to submit to your few, elitist minds. And, as soon as they do, and give you the votes you want, you want nothing else to do with them.

 

It's a B word being a collectivist, isn't it? You waste tons of resources with this approach, but keep telling yourself that your central committee of intellectuals 1000 miles away from the problem, always knows better than the people on site, for whom the work to be done is right in front of them.

 

Heh, you probably still think Medicare is a good idea, even though you personally suffer from its idiocy a little more every year. Just unwilling to admit that LBJ was a tool, aren't you? It's fascinating, really, that the guy who so blatantly F'ed up the Vietnam war....is also your personal God of Health Care.

I think it's inevitable that money will run the show and any restrictions will probably have unintended consequences.

It will never run the tactics of the TEA Party. And, since the unique tactics of the TEA Party define it, it will never run the TEA Party.

 

They only thing money does for the TEA Party: buy pizza for a bunch of people who were going to show up at the meeting anyway, and couldn't care less if there isn't any pizza next time.

Edited July 20, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

 

Heh, you probably still think Medicare is a good idea, even though you personally suffer from its idiocy a little more every year. Just unwilling to admit that LBJ was a tool, aren't you? It's fascinating, really, that the guy who so blatantly F'ed up the Vietnam war....is also your personal God of Health Care.

 

 

you do realize that the average doctor made much less before the advent of medicare, right? the average octagenarian (there were many less of them) received much less care? yeah, i think medicare is a very good thing. the vietnam war? entirely different matter. but lets not cloud the issue. brevity is good.

[3rdnlng]

you do realize that the average doctor made much less before the advent of medicare, right? the average octagenarian (there were many less of them) received much less care? yeah, i think medicare is a very good thing. the vietnam war? entirely different matter. but lets not cloud the issue. brevity is good.

 

I just had an epiphany. Since doctors are making much more now than they did before Medicare, maybe we can ask them to do their fair share and take a cut in their Medicare reimbursements? In fact I'm feeling it so much maybe I could be convinced to go the single payer route if we just put everyone on Medicare at the new fair share rates.

[DC Tom]

I just had an epiphany. Since doctors are making much more now than they did before Medicare, maybe we can ask them to do their fair share and take a cut in their Medicare reimbursements? In fact I'm feeling it so much maybe I could be convinced to go the single payer route if we just put everyone on Medicare at the new fair share rates.

 

That wasn't even a hanging slider. That was T-Ball.

[birdog1960]

That wasn't even a hanging slider. That was T-Ball.

i know. couldn't resist conceding an advantage for a shot a oc. but i'm more than ok with single payor, as you know. there realistically needs to be enough incentive for prospective med students to go 6 figures in deb,t so reimbursement can only go so low. i'm a pragmatic liberal.

[3rdnlng]

That wasn't even a hanging slider. That was T-Ball.

 

I know I probably got points taken off for the degree of difficulty but I was technically correct, nailed the landing and even displayed a little flair.

 

i know. couldn't resist conceding an advantage for a shot a oc. but i'm more than ok with single payor, as you know. there realistically needs to be enough incentive for prospective med students to go 6 figures in deb,t so reimbursement can only go so low. i'm a pragmatic liberal.

 

You mean I didn't do that on my own?

[OCinBuffalo]

you do realize that the average doctor made much less before the advent of medicare, right? the average octagenarian (there were many less of them) received much less care? yeah, i think medicare is a very good thing. the vietnam war? entirely different matter. but lets not cloud the issue. brevity is good.

i know. couldn't resist conceding an advantage for a shot a oc. but i'm more than ok with single payor, as you know. there realistically needs to be enough incentive for prospective med students to go 6 figures in deb,t so reimbursement can only go so low. i'm a pragmatic liberal.

You do realize that we could have had the good stuff about Medicare, and none of the bad, had we not allowed the same tactical buffoons who thought "limited war" was a good idea, to also design the program? You keep telling yourself that people like me don't want to take care of the elderly because we are evil...or at least...not as "moral and compassionate as you are".

 

You refuse to see the truth: I don't hate Medicare because I hate paying money for old people, or whatever nonsense you want to attribute to me. I hate Medicare because it was designed by obvious idiots, who didn't know the first thing about my job, and, it's maintained and supported by obvious idiots today, who still know nothing about my job.

 

Spare us your "morality". Yeah, you're pragmatic alright, in terms of defending this stupid at all costs because your team is responsible for it. If they offered me the job to re-design Medicare/Medicaid tomorrow, I'd do it for half my normal rates. That's because: I know how, I would consider it a moral obligation...because I know how, and because getting this job done right for once, is now more important to me than making money.

 

You're just the opposite, you'd rather defend the suck, because your political views/LBJ's legacy are more important than not sucking. You want more government money sent to and wasted on the geometrically growing empty costs of the suck, while doctors/nurses/aids/therapists get paid less and less, rather than admitting the suck. And worse, you want single payer. So, you want to extend the suck to everybody? Yeah...that's "moral".

[DC Tom]

You mean I didn't do that on my own?

 

Technically, all Americans did it, since you couldn't do it without the internet.

[CosmicBills]

George Soros wants the same thing the Kochs want -- access to the country's purse strings -- and anyone suggesting there is any difference between these two is absolutely, positively out of their mind. The only reason Soros lets you think you share goals and beliefs is so you'll follow him and his publications to hell and back while he collects his taxpayer dollars and hands them over to get people elected who plan to hand him more. Open your eyes.

What I don't get is why people point to either the Kochs or Soros as justification for the other. If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, shouldn't you be as outraged over the Kochs as you are over Soros and visa versa? Both are using misdirection and manipulation to get you on their side when in reality neither gives a shi* about you or your cause.

 

But this kind of debate is exactly what they want. Soros and the Kochs want you fighting the other side rather than looking out for the guy behind you who's trying to pick your pocket.

 

F*ck them all should be the reasonable answer. But instead it's "my rich benefactor is better than your rich benefactor".

[birdog1960]

What I don't get is why people point to either the Kochs or Soros as justification for the other. If what you say here is true, and I believe it is, shouldn't you be as outraged over the Kochs as you are over Soros and visa versa? Both are using misdirection and manipulation to get you on their side when in reality neither gives a shi* about you or your cause.

 

But this kind of debate is exactly what they want. Soros and the Kochs want you fighting the other side rather than looking out for the guy behind you who's trying to pick your pocket.

 

F*ck them all should be the reasonable answer. But instead it's "my rich benefactor is better than your rich benefactor".

good point. and why we should all be very saddened by citzen's united. had a little clip of one of the aforementioned benefactors feigning ignorance of that group on last nights newsroom.