Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

So,the question remains...exactly WHO was George Soros talking about when he said..."Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back"

Soros didn't mean a damn thing when we said this, because he didn't say it. Eli Parser said it.

Quote:

Who is WE?

In your case, a group of people who can't keep up with the conversation.

Cycloptichorn

OK,I was wrong about who said it,but the question still remains...Who was he talking about?

He was talking about the vast body of Democrats who aren't part of the Washington Money machine - Dems who want to see something more than the DLC-Republican-Lite model of how a Democratic party should act.

If you had bothered to do any research about Moveon.org, you would realize this, but it's easier to make a boogeyman out of things than it is to do research. Right?

Cycloptichorn

I'm not making a boogeyman out of anyone.
Since so many single issue groups donated money to the dems,and since they all want something for their money,someone will have to be left out.

So,what dem single issue group will control how the dems act and who will get nothing for the money they paid the dems?

Pissed you off again, have I, thomas?

You figure you are doing better at this or do you just find my earlier obvious disdain unappealing?

ican wrote

Quote:

I have no reason to believe that the e-mail you posted is the same source Horowitz and Poe used. If you have reason to believe that it is from the same source Horowitz and Poe used, then explain your reason for believing that.

What you actually have is no reason to assume it is from anywhere else.

Perhaps you might explain why it doesn't seem to bother you if the source for the quote, excerpted by Horowitz, isn't provided for you by Horowitz.

Perhaps you might add to that explanation why, after I go to the trouble of digging up for you a (entirely credible) source for that quote, you figure some burden of proof lands on me, rather than yourself or Horowitz, neither of you bothering to do that but merely insisting that the Pariser sentence means what you wish it to mean.

It's the content of the e-mail that I question--especially the implied claim that the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, with their $2,000 dollar or less contributions, donated almost all of that $300 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party received in 2004.

Like hell they did!

Quote:

It's the content of the e-mail that I question--especially the implied claim that the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, with their $2,000 dollar or less contributions, donated almost all of that $300 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party received in 2004.

Like hell they did!

Oh really? Where is your evidence that they didn't?

I repeated that evidence in the paragraph that followed in my same post from which you excerpted my first paragraph:

Quote:

"Shadow Party" by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, page 247, NOTES, did provide Horowitz's and Poe's source for the quote. The source was Sam Hananel's article in the Associated Press, December 10, 2004 (the day after Eli Pariser's boast), titled, "MoveON to Democratic Party: 'We Bought It, We Own It.' "

It isn't even hard to believe. Let's do a little math:

300,000,000 dollars. Seems like a lot of dough.

2,000 dollars maximum donation. Seems like not much.

But when you do the math -

300,000,000/2,000 = 150,000.

So, if 150,000 Americans gave the top donation, it would satisfy the amount required. This isn't an unreasonable amount of people donating money.

The Dems got something like 50+ million votes in the last election; if just 1% of that 50 million donated the maximum amount, then you would see more like a billion dollars raised. In order to make the 300 million figure, less than 1/3 of a percentage point of Dem voters would have had to donate the maximum amount.

Cycloptichorn

emphasis added

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

It's the content of the e-mail that I question--especially the implied claim that the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, with their $2,000 dollar or less contributions, donated almost all of that $300 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party received in 2004.

Like hell they did!

Oh really? Where is your evidence that they didn't?

I repeated that evidence in the paragraph that followed in my same post from which you excerpted my first paragraph:

Quote:

"Shadow Party" by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, page 247, NOTES, did provide Horowitz's and Poe's source for the quote. The source was Sam Hananel's article in the Associated Press, December 10, 2004 (the day after Eli Pariser's boast), titled, "MoveON to Democratic Party: 'We Bought It, We Own It.' "

It isn't even hard to believe. Let's do a little math:

300,000,000 dollars. Seems like a lot of dough.

2,000 dollars maximum donation. Seems like not much.

But when you do the math -

300,000,000/2,000 = 150,000.

So, if 150,000 Americans gave the top donation, it would satisfy the amount required. This isn't an unreasonable amount of people donating money.

The Dems got something like 50+ million votes in the last election; if just 1% of that 50 million donated the maximum amount, then you would see more like a billion dollars raised. In order to make the 300 million figure, less than 1/3 of a percentage point of Dem voters would have had to donate the maximum amount.

Cycloptichorn

Your math presumes all gave $2,000. I doubt that the average donation of the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, was as much as $50. So $300,000,000/$50 = 6,000,000 donors.

As I earlier posted, we know that four of the donors (i.e., Soros, Lewis, Bing, Sandler) through pro-democrat 527s--all part of Soros's gang--gave more than $78 million of that $300 million.

Your math presumes all gave $2,000. I doubt that the average donation of the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, was as much as $50. So $300,000,000/$50 = 6,000,000 donors.

As I earlier posted, we know that four of the donors (i.e., Soros, Lewis, Bing, Sandler) through pro-democrat 527s--all part of Soros's gang--gave more than $78 million of that $300 million.

blatham wrote:

Pissed you off again, have I, thomas?

Not at all. I was just being sarcastic -- a fairly normal state for me to be in.

blatham wrote:

You figure you are doing better at this or do you just find my earlier obvious disdain unappealing?

Neither, nor. But while I take your word that you read all these conservative authors, it just doesn't usually show in your posts. They are rarely of the form: "In his book X, Bork writes Y, and that's totally dishonest because of Z." It's much more typical for you to cite authorities you and I respect, but your opponents won't. I consider this a weakness in the cases you're making, whether or not I'm any better at citing sources my opponents tend to respect.

I was sure I'd posted a response to this. Did I dream that? Did my crack on the Treaty of Versailles create a rift in the texture of space/time?

To paraphrase Irving, as regards the romantic hope of altering some minds here through rational discourse, I have been mercilessly mugged by reality. That's not true with many others, obviously, but it's true often enough and persistently enough that it seems precisely as valuable or consequential to carefully present a well-researched and well-argued case as it is to just toss smelly cheese at certain readers. The first is frustrating, at best. The second is joyous celebration at best.

blatham wrote:

I was sure I'd posted a response to this. Did I dream that? Did my crack on the Treaty of Versailles create a rift in the texture of space/time?

If I had to guess, I'd say the hamsters must have tuned out on acid again. Good thing I don't have to guess.

blatham wrote:

To paraphrase Irving, as regards the romantic hope of altering some minds here through rational discourse, I have been mercilessly mugged by reality. That's not true with many others, obviously, but it's true often enough and persistently enough that it seems precisely as valuable or consequential to carefully present a well-researched and well-argued case as it is to just toss smelly cheese at certain readers. The first is frustrating, at best. The second is joyous celebration at best.

This sounds fair enough. Just keep in mind that this is a public forum, not private e-mail. If you toss out cheese to political Neanderthalers, the homo sapienses among us have to smell it, too.

ican711nm wrote:

Your math presumes all gave $2,000. I doubt that the average donation of the individuals--and not non-corporate/non-union leaders--in the Democratic Party, was as much as $50. So $300,000,000/$50 = 6,000,000 donors.

As I earlier posted, we know that four of the donors (i.e., Soros, Lewis, Bing, Sandler) through pro-democrat 527s--all part of Soros's gang--gave more than $78 million of that $300 million.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the top four donors to 527s on the Democratic side were

George Soros with $23,450,000 (not $27,080,105 as you seem to have claimed here), Peter Lewis with $22,997,220, Steven Bing with $13,852,031 and Herb & Marion Sandler with $13,008,459.

This would account for $73.3 million. Unions gave pro-Democratic 527s another $94 million dollars, or about four times as much as Soros.

In combination, this would account for almost $170 million dollars donated to pro-Democratic 527s.

Had the average donation of the individuals merely been $50, that would roughly leave us with about 2,5 million individuals or 7.5 percent of the total American population. Not an unreasonable assumption.

Then again, if you don't want to rely on assumptions (and you might very well want to, given your track record here) or on echoing talking points, you may want to have a look at the pretty comprehensive database of the Center for Responsive Politics.

[George Soros ... Peter Lewis ... Steven Bing ... Sandler donations] would account for $73.3 million. Unions gave pro-Democratic 527s another $94 million dollars, or about four times as much as Soros.

In combination, this would account for almost $170 million dollars donated to pro-Democratic 527s.

...
Sorry, but your doubts have no place in a conversation based on accusations that Soros 'bought' the party.

Why?
...
How am I to know that those you listed are a member of Soros' 'gang?' Where is your evidence that they colluded in any way?

Read "The Shadow Party"--especially the NOTES wherein Horowitz and Poe cite the sources of that on which they based their allegations.

Furthermore, if individual donors gave 232 million, and the others gave 72 million, then individual donors gave the vast majority of money. You are aware of what the words Vast Majority mean, aren't you?

There are about 120 million voting age persons in America. Less than 60%, or less than 72 million, voted in the last election. Say 55% voted Democrat and 45% voted Republican. 55% of 72 million is 39.6 million. So what the hell, let's say there were 40 million people who voted Democrat in the last election. One could say maybe the average donation made by those 40 million Democrats was $300 million / 40 million = $7.50. Does saying maybe make it so? No, of course not. Neither does your guessing make it so!

Does that mean that a big percentage of the 40 million Democrat voters donated "almost all" the $300 million? Answer: Of course not! Why not? Because we already know that more than half the $300 million in donations the Democrats received from Democrat 527s was donated by union leaders from union dues and only four members of Soros's gang. What about the donations from the rest of the Soros gang?

To learn some more about the Soros gang Read "The Shadow Party", Chapter 10 The Shadow Party, pages 175 - 212, plus NOTES, pages 268-272.

Cycloptichorn

...
Sorry, but your doubts have no place in a conversation based on accusations that Soros 'bought' the party.

Why?
...
How am I to know that those you listed are a member of Soros' 'gang?' Where is your evidence that they colluded in any way?

Read "The Shadow Party"--especially the NOTES wherein Horowitz and Poe cite the sources of that on which they based their allegations.

Furthermore, if individual donors gave 232 million, and the others gave 72 million, then individual donors gave the vast majority of money. You are aware of what the words Vast Majority mean, aren't you?

There are about 120 million voting age persons in America. Less than 60%, or less than 72 million, voted in the last election. Say 55% voted Democrat and 45% voted Republican. 55% of 72 million is 39.6 million. So what the hell, let's say there were 40 million people who voted Democrat in the last election. One could say maybe the average donation made by those 40 million Democrats was $300 million / 40 million = $7.50. Does saying maybe make it so? No, of course not. Neither does your guessing make it so!

Does that mean that a big percentage of the 40 million Democrat voters donated "almost all" the $300 million? Answer: Of course not! Why not? Because we already know that more than half the $300 million in donations the Democrats received from Democrat 527s was donated by union leaders from union dues and only four members of Soros's gang. What about the donations from the rest of the Soros gang?

To learn some more about the Soros gang Read "The Shadow Party", Chapter 10 The Shadow Party, pages 175 - 212, plus NOTES, pages 268-272.

Cycloptichorn

By the way, I do recognize your argument tactic. I call it the maybe tactic. I first encountered its use in 1939 and throughout the early 1940s. It was used then to rationalize the behavior of the Nazis.

blatham wrote:

I was sure I'd posted a response to this. Did I dream that? Did my crack on the Treaty of Versailles create a rift in the texture of space/time?

If I had to guess, I'd say the hamsters must have tuned out on acid again. Good thing I don't have to guess.

blatham wrote:

To paraphrase Irving, as regards the romantic hope of altering some minds here through rational discourse, I have been mercilessly mugged by reality. That's not true with many others, obviously, but it's true often enough and persistently enough that it seems precisely as valuable or consequential to carefully present a well-researched and well-argued case as it is to just toss smelly cheese at certain readers. The first is frustrating, at best. The second is joyous celebration at best.

This sounds fair enough. Just keep in mind that this is a public forum, not private e-mail. If you toss out cheese to political Neanderthalers, the homo sapienses among us have to smell it, too.

The current population of the US is now 301 million.

100% x 2.5 million US individuals / 301 million total US individuals = 0.83% of the total American population.

100% x 2.5 million US Democrats / 150.5 million total US Democrats =
1.66% of the total American Democrat population.

But neither your calculation or my calculation is relevant to the point I was making.

If you can't get your numbers right, don't bother posting.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you can't get your numbers right, don't bother posting.

I find that a bit harsh and demand an amendment to include the world "intentional" somewhere in that sentence.