Information Control or how to get to Orwellian governance II

ican711nm wrote:

SOURCES OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE OF GEORGE SOROS'S FUNDING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Influencing_media

http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

Well, ican, it's nice to see just what your sources are however, I would personally prefer that you had actually read one or more of the books Soros has written.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

ican711nm wrote:

SOURCES OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE OF GEORGE SOROS'S FUNDING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Influencing_media

http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Soros

Well, ican, it's nice to see just what your sources are however, I would personally prefer that you had actually read one or more of the books Soros has written.

very good ican, now which of these exactly, have you read other than excerpts? (an extra 10 points for an honest answer)

Because you have not only attacked his political donations, but also seek to attack his philosophy and opinions.

Which, as you have just admitted, you don't know a damn thing about, as you haven't bothered to do any actual research. Instead, you rely on clips and sound bytes to construct a framework of a boogeyman in your mind.

Bravo

Cycloptichorn

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=circumstantial+evidence&x=21&y=9

Main Entry: circumstantial evidence Pronunciation Guide
Function: noun
: evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which according to the common experience of mankind are usually or always attended by the fact in issue and that therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue

Listen, you can't just repeat the same crappy sources over and over again without addressing people's valid observation that those sources do not provide any evidence, circumstancial or not, to support any of your or O'Reilly's accusations and allegations.

You are behaving in an intellectually dishonest fashion, Poltroon.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nope, I still don't see what he said that has you in such a tizzy. Maybe you can explain exactly how his dastardly plan is supposed to work
Cycloptichorn

His plan is working!
First, he bought a majority of the Democratic Party and a minority of the Republican Party.
Second he bought a majority of the news media.
Third he is using those purchases to convince the American voters to turn us into a "Big Brother" state (e.g., a socialist state).

First, he bought a majority of the Democratic Party and a minority of the Republican Party.

Second he bought a majority of the news media.

Third he is using those purchases to convince the American voters to turn us into a "Big Brother" state (e.g., a socialist state)

...

Quote:

First, he bought a majority of the Democratic Party and a minority of the Republican Party.

...

Quote:

Second he bought a majority of the news media.

...

Quote:

Third he is using those purchases to convince the American voters to turn us into a "Big Brother" state (e.g., a socialist state)

Show me proof. You have none, but I'd like to see you try. Be specific. The American voters involve a huge group of people, and such an effort - which you claim is working - would be tremendous. Be specific, name names of people and show exactly how he did it. ...

Nothing in your links provides anything even close to this.

...Cycloptichorn

I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.

Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.

My goal is to become the conscience of the world

Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.

Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.

My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.

These are not normal times.

The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.

In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")

On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."

Soros … pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.

First, he bought a majority of the Democratic Party and a minority of the Republican Party.
Second he bought a majority of the news media.
Third he is using those purchases to convince the American voters to turn us into a "Big Brother" state (e.g., a socialist state).

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

...
I haven't made any allegations which need supporting, so your criticism of me falls flat.
...
Cycloptichorn

If you want to argue the Declaration of Independence and what the principles are in it you perhaps should read MORE than just the opening paragraph. The only use of the word "principles" clearly supports Soros' quote..
...

The Declaration of Independence
(Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776)
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totaly unworth the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

it's been a long time since i read through the doi.

strange how much of it is applicable to the current "king george".

thanks for pointing that out, ican.

The rights do change based on our world view changes.

So Ican the "principles" listed in the Declaration are the "principles" underlying the government. No where does the Declaration declare the principles underlying the government to be "undeniable truths"

It's an undeniable truth that we have certain rights. What those rights are and what rights the government should support are not an undeniable truth. There is no complete list of rights that the government should support. The declaration only lists 3 among the rights that would be undeniable. Give us the complete list of those rights if you please and show how it has never changed in 200 years. Soros is correct. The rights do change based on our world view changes.