Interesting opinion piece on George Soros from Pravda

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 12:24 PM GMT
    Goes into some detail, including an opinion why Fox news is his nemesis "because Fox News is the only station that uncovers and reports to you what Soros does not want you to know." This also lists some of his international antics:
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/22-11-2010/115867-george_soros-0/

    For those interested in international viewpoints, here are links to English language versions: http://english.pravda.ru/. and http://www.themoscowtimes.com/index.php. To help you calibrate these sources, the Huffington Post is to the left of Pravda. In fact in the article linked above, Pravda refers to the Huffington Post as liberal. The Huffington Post is also to the left of The Moscow Times. You will probably be somewhat frustrated reading much of the Russian media, because even the more liberal Russian media outlets champion trying to improve their market economy, having rejected the failed economic model from their past that a few guys here love so much. But fear not: Pravda still has plenty of anti-US articles, so those who are part of the blame America first crowd can still find comfort here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 1:12 PM GMT
    I see the Pravda of yesteryear's Communist Party and the Pravda of today's corrupt Russian bureaucratic oligarchy are one and the same.
    This is the Pravda of Russia which, as the Economist describes, is frozen at the core, that can no longer change:
    http://www.economist.com/node/17674075?story_id=17674075Unlike private businessmen, who started to invest in their core businesses (Yukos among them) in the late 1990s, bureaucrat-entrepreneurs have little incentive to do so. Their wealth is dependent on their administrative power, rather than newfangled property rights. The profits are often stashed away in foreign bank accounts or quickly spent: on luxury property in European capitals, or on their children’s education in British private schools. All this is inevitably accompanied by anti-Western rhetoric and claims of Russia’s resurgence.

    Unsurprisingly, surveys now show that the young would rather have a job in the government or a state firm than in a private business. Over the past ten years the number of bureaucrats has gone up by 66%, from 527,000 to 878,000, and the cost of maintaining such a state machine has risen from 15% to 20% of GDP. At the same time, Russia’s standing in indices of corruption, property rights and business freedom has deteriorated. When its leaders talk up the state as the solution to all problems, the government’s failure to satisfy people’s basic needs, such as security and policing, becomes all the more striking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 7:10 PM GMT
    jprichva saidI miss Stalin. He was deeply misunderstood, you know. All he wanted was to be loved, even as you and me. Is that so wrong?


    wth
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Dec 16, 2010 8:54 PM GMT
    George Soros is a man whom I have never understood in his desire to have such a public face. He reminds me of Donald Trump in that regard. Ego.

    Suppose he is angry because he cannot run for President and be the next Stalin -- who we find out today is so dearly loved by at least one RJ memeber?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 10:14 PM GMT
    Some more "enlightenment" from Pravda:
    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/13-12-2010/116171-Christopher_Hitchens-0/
    --religion anyone?
    http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/24-11-2010/115908-large_hadron_collider-0/
    --invokes Nostradamus
    http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/10-12-2010/116146-nasa_alien_life-0/--theologian tries to disprove evolution
    http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/22-11-2010/115865-darwin_science-0/
    --theologian strikes again--anybody sense a theme here? icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 10:25 PM GMT
    Seriously, the uniting theme in the Pravda opinion pages is neither left nor right: it's anti-Western jingoism. There's an article on the poverty and pettiness of the American political system (leftish), another on how Palin is a clown without a circus (leftish), and another one about the EU house of cards (pro-Communist).

    It's neither reliable nor informative unless you're Russian and hate the West.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 10:27 PM GMT
    Wait the LHC is going to DESTROY THE EARTH!??!?!?!

    WTF?!?!?!?!?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 10:28 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSeriously, the uniting theme in the Pravda opinion pages is neither left nor right: it's anti-Western jingoism. There's an article on the poverty and pettiness of the American political system (leftish), another on how Palin is a clown without a circus (leftish), and another one about the EU house of cards (pro-Communist).

    It's neither reliable nor informative unless you're Russian and hate the West.


    I don't think socalfitness has a sufficiently sophisticated view of politics to understand this :-/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 11:06 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    q1w2e3 saidSeriously, the uniting theme in the Pravda opinion pages is neither left nor right: it's anti-Western jingoism. There's an article on the poverty and pettiness of the American political system (leftish), another on how Palin is a clown without a circus (leftish), and another one about the EU house of cards (pro-Communist).

    It's neither reliable nor informative unless you're Russian and hate the West.


    I don't think socalfitness has a sufficiently sophisticated view of politics to understand this :-/

    Oh the ad hominems again. Q - I think you don't have the context to interpret their intent to accurately put left and right labels on. Certainly it is anti-West; I said it was anti-US in the OP, and it is full of fallacies. Never said otherwise. But what it does do is paint an extremely unflattering picture of George Soros, and cites specific things he has done to support the unflattering picture. Wouldn't your efforts be more productive to defend one of the US left's heros instead of all the focus on the failings of Pravda? Are you unable to do that, so everything else is a deflection?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 16, 2010 11:25 PM GMT
    Interesting opinion piece on George Soros from Pravda

    Umm ....... You do realize you're sourcing Pravda ?

    P-R-A-V-D-A !!!! icon_biggrin.gif

    Because their truth in journalistic values surpasses none other

    What next ? Will you be sourcing Iranian State TV for women's breast sizes??

    Oh but you did make me laugh and I thank you for that icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 16, 2010 11:48 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    q1w2e3 saidSeriously, the uniting theme in the Pravda opinion pages is neither left nor right: it's anti-Western jingoism. There's an article on the poverty and pettiness of the American political system (leftish), another on how Palin is a clown without a circus (leftish), and another one about the EU house of cards (pro-Communist).

    It's neither reliable nor informative unless you're Russian and hate the West.


    I don't think socalfitness has a sufficiently sophisticated view of politics to understand this :-/

    Oh the ad hominems again. Q - I think you don't have the context to interpret their intent to accurately put left and right labels on. Certainly it is anti-West; I said it was anti-US in the OP, and it is full of fallacies. Never said otherwise. But what it does do is paint an extremely unflattering picture of George Soros, and cites specific things he has done to support the unflattering picture. Wouldn't your efforts be more productive to defend one of the US left's heros instead of all the focus on the failings of Pravda? Are you unable to do that, so everything else is a deflection?


    Did I even mention a single person? Ad hominem--to those who want the target on themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I'm just taking issue with your statement:"To help you calibrate these sources, the Huffington Post is to the left of Pravda." If you take that as an ad hominem, you must have the skin of an Amazonian frog. icon_lol.gif

    I even agree with some of the points made by the leftish articles I mentioned. Does this make them any more informative and unbiased? No, because their viewpoint is that anything American or Western is bad, and the pervasive influence of religion and anti-science begs the question: are they still stuck with Lysenko's methods colored by Russian Orthodox Christianity when they interpret the news and science? I.e. Procrustes' method?

    Therefore I'm going to take their article on Soros with many a grain of salt.

    I leave this thread with another aphorism from Taleb:
    "Most Info-Media-Web-Newspaper types have a hard time
    swallowing the idea that knowledge is mostly reached by removing
    junk from peoples' heads."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 12:10 AM GMT
    I quoted TigerTim and the ad hominem comment was directed towards his post. Regarding your positions, I still submit that with the analysis you're doing on Pravda, you could spend that time disputing the Soros piece. I'm thinking the Soros piece is right on the money and hard to attack; easier to look at other articles and then just say taking Soros article with a grain of salt instead of confronting. (BTW - you don't like Trofim Lysenko, state sanctioned biologist????)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    q1w2e3 saidSeriously, the uniting theme in the Pravda opinion pages is neither left nor right: it's anti-Western jingoism. There's an article on the poverty and pettiness of the American political system (leftish), another on how Palin is a clown without a circus (leftish), and another one about the EU house of cards (pro-Communist).

    It's neither reliable nor informative unless you're Russian and hate the West.


    I don't think socalfitness has a sufficiently sophisticated view of politics to understand this :-/


    That is the understatement of the year.icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
    I read the article on Soros, and it quotes many biographical data without context, with perjorative coloring of words. He should have nothing to apologize for in the 1940's--he was forced to do what he did as a kid, to save his life. Encouraging coups in Communist countries should be applauded by democrats (with a small d) everywhere. Being atheist is a plus in my book, a minus in the Russian mind. His concern about Fox's misinformation campaign is well-founded (see the Fox News bias thread for a study showing exactly that). And its dumbfounding mixture of religion and fiscal conservatism, its belief in prayer (in doing exactly what? Faith-healing?) I can't even fathom:

    All hail Putin and God!
    Soros would have done this in Russia but Vladimir Putin is too powerful. Schwartz was afraid he would be put in jail as some of the other oligarchs were if he challenged him. Putin is a good Orthodox Christian and fiscal conservative.
    ...
    However, since he believes there is no God he is blind to the effect prayer has on the world. Like Lucifer he cannot see God's true power. His "pride" blinds him. Soros ignorance of God will be his downfall. "He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart." - Luke 1:51.
    ...
    They will never acknowledge that people who pray can move mountains. Instead they will promote lies and propaganda about any conservative especially if they are Republican. Prayer is America's secret weapon. There are still enough Christians left in America who pray and say "God Bless America!". Soros will never say "God Bless America!".


    And Lysenko, don't even get me started.
    wikiIn 1964, physicist Andrei Sakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Academy of Sciences:

    He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists.


    Khrennikov's politics can be excused by his music; Lysenko has no redeeming qualities at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 12:48 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidI read the article on Soros ....
    Lysenko has no redeeming qualities at all.

    My comment on good old Trofim was in jest. I do agree with you on that. If you were going to pull some quotes from the Soros article, you might have overlooked the following:

    The group he [Soros] was talking to, "Democracy Alliance" (which really means "Marxists of America") are rich Marxists who share the same views as Schwartz (Soros' real name). Schwartz created Democracy Alliance after Bush won the election in 2004. They are all Bush haters. They say they are saving America and the world from wars. However, if they really wanted to stop violence they should have looked at Islamic terrorism years ago.

    The "Democracy Alliance" should have started with Islamic nations who started the Jihad. They made the war an excuse to demonize Bush. They really hate Bush because he got in the way of Soros' agenda.

    Many thanks to David Horowitz who reveals Soros' goals on discoverthenetworks.org. His parents were Communists and he was a liberal but later he became a conservative. His book, "The Shadow Party:" explains Soros and the Democratic party connection.

    Soros admitted he had started shadow governments in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia where coups later occurred. The Democratic Shadow Party resembles those shadow governments.


    Then he goes on with some specifics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 11:39 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    conservativejock said
    Suppose he is angry because he cannot run for President and be the next Stalin -- who we find out today is so dearly loved by at least one RJ memeber?

    Are you and MockTwinkleToes really this stupid?
    I begin to doubt you're the wealthy mogul you claim to be. No one who's made that kind of money could seriously be this dense.


    He didn't make it. He inherited it, which he let slip in some other thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 11:52 AM GMT
    468_pravda.jpg

    Same bullshit, different era.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 2:05 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    Same bullshit, different era.

    No disagreement, but it is interesting to note that although some opinions of the Soros article were challenged, no one has challenged any of the material facts of the Soros article, or the book he referenced, The Shadow Party by David Horowitz. BTW - interesting reviews of that on Amazon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 2:35 PM GMT
    Extensively debunked by mediamatters, in 8/2006.

    http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=shadow+party&x=0&y=0&page=2

    On Amazon, when a political book's reviews are divided between 5 stars and 1 stars, you can be fairly certain that it's partisan.

    I'm glad Mr. Horowitz made the astounding discovery that one named political donor made donations. How about the many others this past election who shall remain unnamed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 3:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidExtensively debunked by mediamatters, in 8/2006.

    http://mediamatters.org/search/index?qstring=shadow+party&x=0&y=0&page=2

    On Amazon, when a political book's reviews are divided between 5 stars and 1 stars, you can be fairly certain that it's partisan.

    I'm glad Mr. Horowitz made the astounding discovery that one named political donor made donations. How about the many others this past election who shall remain unnamed?

    "Extensively debunked" consists of unverified assertions and innuendos from a highly radical left-wing web site. Believe what you want. Although Soros's first public finding to MediaMatters occurred in 2010, who doubts earlier indirect funding. Even if no earlier funding existed or could be proven, who doubts the ideological congruence between MediaMatters and Soros. Hardly an independent reviewer of the book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
    GQjock saidInteresting opinion piece on George Soros from Pravda

    Umm ....... You do realize you're sourcing Pravda ?

    P-R-A-V-D-A !!!! icon_biggrin.gif

    Because their truth in journalistic values surpasses none other

    What next ? Will you be sourcing Iranian State TV for women's breast sizes??

    Oh but you did make me laugh and I thank you for that icon_wink.gif


    This is actually the best post out of all.

    Russian news sources are as reliable and function similarly to the Iranian state media. Go look up on RFE/RL how many Russian journalists "disappeared" over the last couple years.

    As they said in the USSR, "there's no pravda in the izvestia and no izvestia in the pravda"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 4:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    "Extensively debunked" consists of unverified assertions and innuendos from a highly radical left-wing web site. Believe what you want. Although Soros's first public finding to MediaMatters occurred in 2010, who doubts earlier indirect funding. Even if no earlier funding existed or could be proven, who doubts the ideological congruence between MediaMatters and Soros. Hardly an independent reviewer of the book.


    http://mediamatters.org/research/200608020003
    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611170004

    Points out some rather factual errors in the book that can be verified.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 5:04 PM GMT
    Tazo995 said...Russian news sources are as reliable and function similarly to the Iranian state media. Go look up on RFE/RL how many Russian journalists "disappeared" over the last couple years.

    As they said in the USSR, "there's no pravda in the izvestia and no izvestia in the pravda"

    Quite true, and you might have seen some of the relatively recent articles on Georgia. My point in the thread was two-fold. First, I think the article by Soros is interesting in its own right, and has only been "debunked" by a far left website. Second, there is an irony in that an article can appear in Pravda that could equally fit in a right leaning US publication.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 5:08 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    socalfitness said
    "Extensively debunked" consists of unverified assertions and innuendos from a highly radical left-wing web site. Believe what you want. Although Soros's first public finding to MediaMatters occurred in 2010, who doubts earlier indirect funding. Even if no earlier funding existed or could be proven, who doubts the ideological congruence between MediaMatters and Soros. Hardly an independent reviewer of the book.


    http://mediamatters.org/research/200608020003
    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611170004

    Points out some rather factual errors in the book that can be verified.


    "Can be verified" and "actually verified" are two different things. In the former, we are still relying on a highly biased website. If a neutral website made the same assertions, it would have some credibility. Otherwise, one would need to fact-check each assertion in MediaMatters to see if their points, critique by critique, were themselves accurate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 17, 2010 7:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    q1w2e3 said
    socalfitness said
    "Extensively debunked" consists of unverified assertions and innuendos from a highly radical left-wing web site. Believe what you want. Although Soros's first public finding to MediaMatters occurred in 2010, who doubts earlier indirect funding. Even if no earlier funding existed or could be proven, who doubts the ideological congruence between MediaMatters and Soros. Hardly an independent reviewer of the book.


    http://mediamatters.org/research/200608020003
    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200611170004

    Points out some rather factual errors in the book that can be verified.


    "Can be verified" and "actually verified" are two different things. In the former, we are still relying on a highly biased website. If a neutral website made the same assertions, it would have some credibility. Otherwise, one would need to fact-check each assertion in MediaMatters to see if their points, critique by critique, were themselves accurate.



    Questioning the credibility of mediamatters and dismissing their findings is a lame ad hominem attack.
    If you have some proof that mediamatters is wrong about the errors they found, please post it.