Replies

I am reading it, and I'm finding the chain of logic to be even funkier than the formatting.

First of all, how do you go from Soros' words, "...they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine," to your idea that "What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none--we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations."? What, exactly, does Soros say that suggests we must be subject to the United Nations rather than an active part of it? Or is this just projection on your part?

And who, in your mind, is a "neo-neoliberalist"? I read your definition and couldn't think of anybody that fits the bill. For that matter, what would a "neo-liberalist" be? I must have missed that movement over here on the left.

Also, why do you endorse killing Americans who disagree with you?