• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Soros funds Ferguson protests to the tune of $33M?? Is this for real?

AmericanSpartan said:
Because he funds groups that advance agendas built on lies and do nothing but create hostility, and help further divide the American people.
Click to expand...

This is meaningless blather.

Soros gives money to groups three years prior to the Ferguson incident that incites protests; the article's headline is "George Soros funds Ferguson protests." That is painfully dishonest. That's like saying if I give someone $10, and that person shoots someone three years later, I paid for the gun.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
The fundamental problem of the political Left seems to be that the real world does not fit their preconceptions. Therefore they see the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently their preconceptions cannot be wrong.
Click to expand...

Speaking of meaningless blather ...
 
Kobie said:
This is meaningless blather.

Soros gives money to groups three years prior to the Ferguson incident that incites protests; the article's headline is "George Soros funds Ferguson protests." That is painfully dishonest. That's like saying if I give someone $10, and that person shoots someone three years later, I paid for the gun.
Click to expand...

No, it is not "painfully dishonest", these groups have a history of rousing the rabble, and spreading out right lies.

"HAND UP, DONT SHOOT" right a bell? Even after 3 autopsies proved his hands were up yet every leftist in the media was and still says his hands were up.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
No, it is not "painfully dishonest", these groups have a history of rousing the rabble, and spreading out right lies.

"HAND UP, DONT SHOOT" right a bell? Even after 3 autopsies proved his handwere up yet every leftist in the media was and still says his hands were up.
Click to expand...

And guess what? Three-year-old donations have NOTHING to do with "Hands up, don't shoot."
 
Kobie said:
And guess what? Three-year-old donations have NOTHING to do with "Hands up, don't shoot."
Click to expand...

He funded the same groups that created and ran with that narrative. It has a great deal to do with it, and inflaming people to the point of they acted out in violence do to flat out lies.

You fund groups that do this, you are to blame.

Keep defending your like mind leftist, Nazi collaborating, Billionaire, he is not long for this world.

And when he dies his lawyers, heires and everyone else will steal his wealth, and the cause he created and funded will wither and die.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
He funded the same groups that created and ran with that narrative. It has a great deal to do with it, and inflaming people to the point of they acted out in violence do to flat out lies.

You fund groups that do this, you are to blame.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Not when someone is being blamed for a specific incident, because of donations made three years prior to said incident. That's lunacy.
 
Kobie said:
Nonsense. Not when someone is being blamed for a specific incident, because of donations made three years prior to said incident. That's lunacy.
Click to expand...

If you fund a terrorist group, are you not able to be blamed when they do something? Yes or No?

If no, why not?
 
AmericanSpartan said:
If you fund a terrorist group, are you not able to be blamed when they do something? Yes or No?

If no, why not?
Click to expand...

Well, for starters, funding a terrorist group is illegal, but that's neither here nor there.

One can say someone is to blame for that organization's activities in general, but not specific incidents unless there is some evidence directly tying those donations to that incident, none of which exists here.
 
eohrnberger said:
Forget the Koch brothers: Labor unions took advantage of easier campaign finance laws - Washington Times

The findings from Center for Public Integrity study say your preconceived notions are not accurate.
Click to expand...

You're not seeing the forest for the trees here: what counts where money is concerned are results. Having said that, the last thirty years only shows us who's money has been more successful: that's the point. So, there are no preconceived notions, just facts.

Now, here's an interesting article that shows US how right money is working: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/

If lawmakers seem to tiptoe around gun issues, it's at least in part because the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are loaded for bear. Cash is their ammunition, and they have no shortage of it. Gun rights groups have given more than $30 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989, with nearly $27 million -- or 87% -- of it going to Republicans. And in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, they let loose another $41.2 million (at least) in outside spending, almost all of which has put Democrats in their crosshairs. The NRA has provided the lion's share of the funds, having contributed more than $21 million since '89 and further opening its coffers to make $25 million in outside expenditures.
Click to expand...
 
jet57 said:
You're not seeing the forest for the trees here: what counts where money is concerned are results. Having said that, the last thirty years only shows us who's money has been more successful: that's the point. So, there are no preconceived notions, just facts.

Now, here's an interesting article that shows US how right money is working: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/
Click to expand...

OK, so let's look at what that money has produced then, specifically to the overall trending of Democratic positions.

• "Don't ask, don't tell": This policy prevented the armed services from discriminating against homosexuals while simultaneously removing those who openly disclosed their sexual orientation. By most military accounts, it was a success. Democrats nonetheless passed a bill in 2010 granting the executive the power to repeal it, and in July of last year President Obama undid the Clinton compromise.

• The Defense of Marriage Act: Clinton signed it in 1996, acknowledging the states' traditional role in family law. Allowing respective states to determine whether or not to embrace same-sex unions diffused the issue for all but the most ardent of activists. However, last year Obama instructed the Justice Department to quit defending the law, and in a campaign switch, the president now publicly supports gay marriage.

• Welfare reform: Obama's Health and Human Services' waiver of the Clinton-era work requirements aimed at testing "alternative and innovative strategies," such as combining "learning and work ... or job search/readiness programs" is coming under fire from the Government Accountability Office. Its general counsel released an opinion saying that changes in the law should have been approved by Congress, not by the executive.

• Capital-gains taxes: When the capital-gains rate was cut from 28 percent to 20 percent in 1997, revenues doubled to more than $127 billion during Clinton's second term. Obama is demanding a staggering 59 percent increase in the rate. His preferred rate of 23.8 percent includes his new 3.8 percent Obamacare investment tax.

• Spending: Due to a Cold War peace dividend -- as well as a recalcitrant Congress -- spending as a share of GDP under Clinton fell to less than 19 percent, and debt flatlined. During his first term, Obama has racked up $5 trillion in new debt; spending is at 25 percent of GDP, and instead of laying claim to new savings in the budget, the president says, "After two wars that have cost us ... over a trillion dollars, it's time to do some nation-building right here at home."
Click to expand...
Democrats veer left; here is the evidence | Star Tribune

So over all, a shift left. Where's the effect you claim of all the Republican money? Surely, you'd think that this would be moves to the more conservative positions, but it's not so.

And yet, with even these moves from center to left, there are cries that Obama should have gone even further.

Your assertion that conservatives, conservative money, and the Republicans steering the country ever further right just rings hollow, when considering these examples.
 
eohrnberger said:
OK, so let's look at what that money has produced then, specifically to the overall trending of Democratic positions.

Democrats veer left; here is the evidence | Star Tribune

So over all, a shift left. Where's the effect you claim of all the Republican money? Surely, you'd think that this would be moves to the more conservative positions, but it's not so.

And yet, with even these moves from center to left, there are cries that Obama should have gone even further.

Your assertion that conservatives, conservative money, and the Republicans steering the country ever further right just rings hollow, when considering these examples.
Click to expand...

Democrats will always veer left! They have since The Civil Rights Act. Again, look at the sate of nation to determine where the money is being put to use. Those things you names are socially constitutional issues which has always been the platform of the left. The right has always been in the pocket of business and trade interests and doesn't take Fellini to figure out what right-wing money is going where.

You're just having trouble admitting it.
 
jet57 said:
You're not seeing the forest for the trees here: what counts where money is concerned are results. Having said that, the last thirty years only shows us who's money has been more successful: that's the point. So, there are no preconceived notions, just facts.

Now, here's an interesting article that shows US how right money is working: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/guns/
Click to expand...

Picking a single data point on which to base a broad based claim. I thought that was the definition of cherry picking. Any over all citation to indicate that the left is so whoa fully short of funding as opposed to say more conservative groups?

What about that ambiguous claim, well other than the one cherry picked article above, about where conservative groups are spending their money? Care to comment on that?
 
eohrnberger said:
Picking a single data point on which to base a broad based claim. I thought that was the definition of cherry picking. Any over all citation to indicate that the left is so whoa fully short of funding as opposed to say more conservative groups?

What about that ambiguous claim, well other than the one cherry picked article above, about where conservative groups are spending their money? Care to comment on that?
Click to expand...


Now you're just being contrarian just to do it. The evidence of what I'm saying has been quite clear for decades now. And as long as the thieves face no consequences, they will continue to steal from us; that's the nature of greed, and quite frankly sociopathic behavior.
 
jet57 said:
Now you're just being contrarian just to do it. The evidence of what I'm saying has been quite clear for decades now. And as long as the thieves face no consequences, they will continue to steal from us; that's the nature of greed, and quite frankly sociopathic behavior.
Click to expand...
Or so you've been told
 
jet57 said:
Now you're just being contrarian just to do it. The evidence of what I'm saying has been quite clear for decades now. And as long as the thieves face no consequences, they will continue to steal from us; that's the nature of greed, and quite frankly sociopathic behavior.
Click to expand...

j-mac said:
Or so you've been told
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree.

Jet. So out with it already. Enough of this 'I know something you don't know' BS. Put the cards on the table already. Make your case.
 
eohrnberger said:
I'd have to agree.

Jet. So out with it already. Enough of this 'I know something you don't know' BS. Put the cards on the table already. Make your case.
Click to expand...

I did eric, and I have been for several posts now.
 
jet57 said:
I did eric, and I have been for several posts now.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Jet. I search this thread for all your posts, and reviewed them. Your substantiation of your assertions must be eluding us mere mortals.
 
spud_meister said:
Can you actually prove they wouldn't be around, or are you just pulling that out your arse?
Click to expand...

Can you prove that they would? or are you just deflecting because you don't want to admit that Soros represents exactly what you complain about from the right concerning the Koch's?
 
jet57 said:
I did eric, and I have been for several posts now.
Click to expand...

Just because you type something and hit post doesn't mean that it becomes fact....Your double standards, as with most liberals are just amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom