Join 3,426 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Blogs of the billionaires
October 2, 2004 6:29 PM   Subscribe

George Soros' blog: hot on the heels of the early-adopter in chief, Bill Gates, George Soros has joined the blogging community. Needless to say, the onetime scourge of British monetary policy is not using LiveJournal but he does have a provocative position over the war in Iraq. Warren Buffet by contrast, despite having signed on as a Kerry economic adviser, appears to concur with the pre-emption doctrine. Does anything about the US election make sense anymore? The capital markets seem to have agreed that the outcome point is moot - can popular opinion (.pdf) be far behind? Some disagree. (.pdf)
posted by dmt (8 comments total)

 
Pre-emption doesn't necessary mean a full-scale invasion and occupation of an unarmed nation.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:06 PM on October 2, 2004


Right, I mean theoretically if we've found papers from the president of Nation X saying he's planning on nuking Florida, I don't think anyone would argue with pre-empting that. I think we've heard "pre-emptive" so much that we have all become numb to the idea you're actually supposed to pre-empt something. I sure have.

Soros vs. Moon
posted by inksyndicate at 9:39 PM on October 2, 2004


Interesting post. The wordiq.com link is just a copy of the Wikipedia article though, you might want to link directly to wikipedia in future, as they will have the most up to date article and will allow people to edit the article if they spot mistakes or have additions.
posted by fvw at 9:58 PM on October 2, 2004


The capital markets seem to have agreed that the outcome point is moot

i think it's time the forests (and most of the rest of the living creature on earth other than texas republicans who think jesus is coming for them in the next couple weeks) and the "capital markets" have a little talk ...
posted by specialk420 at 10:34 PM on October 2, 2004


The pre-emption doctrine is really nothing new, it's how it was applied to Iraq and/or how exactly one defines "pre-emption." Kerry made this point during the debate:

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.


But in any case, I think Buffet could support some aspects of Bush's foreign policy while at the same time supporting Kerry more on fiscal matters. The two are different things, and not really related.
I agree there are a lot of things about the election that don't make sense (especially to a European), but Buffet's stands isn't one of them.

specialk420 please know that GWB doesn't really support the views of Texans or even many Texas Republicans . . .the wacky Fundamentalist Christians can be found in every state . . . he actually has more support in places like Utah, Kansas, and Wyoming than here in the Lone Star State. But still I would like to apologise sincerely to the nation . . .
posted by sixdifferentways at 11:20 PM on October 2, 2004


Soros vs. Moon

Speaking of Moon: Unification Church, looking to go from 'cult' to 'religion,' gets some of Bush's faith-based funding.
posted by homunculus at 12:07 AM on October 3, 2004


I think the comments in that Bill Gates link you provide dmt, really shed some light on where this is all headed.

I highly recommend reading them again even if you did so the first time. Some of the points made in those comments are worth cutting and pasting for posterity.
posted by crasspastor at 3:28 AM on October 3, 2004


But in any case, I think Buffet could support some aspects of Bush's foreign policy while at the same time supporting Kerry more on fiscal matters.

Buffet?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:22 AM on October 3, 2004


« Older "If only you could see what I've seen with...  |  Are you not amazed at how she ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments