George Soros: The Lord of the Democrats?

Remember the debate about George Soros a while back on the old FC with the troll known as Telson?

Well, it looks like I am not the only one picking up the danger of Mr. Soros to the political process. Here are some of Soros' own statement, as well as some of his recent activities. Draw your own conclusions:

Soros: “I Have Always Harboured An Exaggerated View Of My Self-Importance … To Put It Bluntly, I Fancied Myself As Some Kind Of God Or An Economic Reformer Like Keynes, Or, Even Better, Like Einstein.” (Stephen Fay, “George Soros: God Of All He Surveys,” The [London] Independent, 5/17/98)

Pledged $15.5 Million In Soft Money To Anti-Bush Groups, Including $10 Million To America Coming Together, $3 Million To The Center For American Progress And $2.5 Million To MoveOn.org. (Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets Vs. Bush,” The Washington Post, 11/11/03)

Largest Single Contributor In American Political History. (Byron York, “Democrats Throw The Spirit Of Reform Out The Window,” The Hill, 11/5/03)

Would Spend Entire $7 Billion Fortune To Defeat Bush “If Someone Guaranteed” Outcome. (Laura Blumenfeld, “Soros’s Deep Pockets Vs. Bush,” The Washington Post, 11/11/03)

Soros On Soros: “‘I have had these illusions, or perhaps delusions, of grandeur and they have driven me.’ He has also said that his ‘goal is to become the conscience of the world.’” (Anthony Gottlieb, “Who Wants To Be A Billionaire?” The New York Times, 3/3/02)

Supports Voting Rights For Felons: Financed efforts to obtain voting rights for felons. (Rebecca Carr, “Superdonors’ Super Power,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/11/01)

Supports Reducing U.S. Sovereignty: Wrote that to preserve “our global open society,” the world needs “some global system of political decision-making” in which “the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.” (Matthew Rees, “Saving Capitalism From Soros,” The Ottawa Citizen, 12/9/98)

Supports Gun Control: Contributed millions to support gun control efforts and financed lawsuit against gun manufacturers. (James Dao, “Gun Control Groups Use N.R.A. Tactics For Fall Elections,” The New York Times, 7/24/00; David B. Ottaway, “Legal Assault On Firms Is Armed By Foundations,” The Washington Post, 5/19/99)

French Court Convicted Soros Of Insider Trading, Fined Him $2.3 Million. (John Tagliabue, “Soros Is Found Guilty In France On Charges Of Insider Trading,” The New York Times, 12/21/02)

Accused Of “Destabilizing World Currencies And Wrecking The Economies Of Nations.” (Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune, 10/27/03)

Known As The “Man Who Broke The Bank Of England.” (William Shawcross, “Turning Dollars Into Change,” Time, 9/1/97)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Soros, unlike so many others, at least is clear in his intensions. Beyond that, he's done a number of good things as well.

What is the cause for your disliking of him so much, beyond his anti-bush rhetoric?

--Dan

 

The question is, rather then dislike him, what has he done to make us like him or choose him after these quotes?

Sunny

 

Taking out the pound is something to his credit...

--Dan

 

He also donated $50 million for water trucks during the Kosovo crisis. Trucks could dispense water in tunnels and other locations sheltered from snipers' bullets.

While others postured in front of TV cameras, Soros' money quietly made it happen.

 

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazines/2002/september/karatnycyk.html

 

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000083.html

 

"What is the cause for your disliking of him so much, "

"Supports Gun Control: Contributed millions to support gun control efforts and financed lawsuit against gun manufacturers. "

Anybody who attempts to overthrow one of our constitutional amendments, like the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, is worth disliking in my book. How would people feel if somebody attempted to eliminate the First Amendment Right of Free Speech or freedom of religion, etc? They would be ridden out of their politically correct town on a rail. (After being tarred and feathered, of course.)

 

Thank you for the links, but I'm going to hold off supporting him. When he wants to spend the budget as he sees fit, no matter how financially feasable, what is he going to do against the political resistance/how is he going to handle the political arena without prior experience? Billions on reform is one thing, is he ready to fork over that to do what he thinks is right if he's President? I don't see enough benefit in Soros to sway my vote from Clark.

 

He's not running for president himself.

 

Ahhh, politically active enough to see someone replace Dubya. Interesting.

 

Arlie: your analogy isn't exactly right. Gun control is not banning guns, it's tryign to CONTROL the flow of them into the right vs. wrong hands. Now, the proliferation of them is so rampant that it is beyond difficult to create an effective gun control scheme, but that's nto to say it's not worth trying. And the gun companies are certainly doing their part in crimes. Frankly I think they should be tried in cases involving murder, etc. - you'd suddenly see a hell of a lot less guns on the market, and I think you would see tighter control around those who can supply them (because we all know gun dealers aren't exactly the most savory and noble of individuals).

Liken it to this: driving. Do you think people should be tested and granted a license to drive, or simply go ahead and drive w/o due process? It may not be a right, but people treat it as one.

--Dan

 

Dan,

I dislike him because he almost brought down the world economy--TWICE--in a venal attempt (successful, I might add) to make himself from a multimillionairre into a billionaire.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Clinton also did some good things as well. 'Nuff said.

Unfortunately, I cannot go into all my justification for thinking that Soros is Prime Evil, since it involves work I did many moons ago in another life, which I cannot ever discuss. Believe me or no--your choice--but he is a BAAAAAAAAD mutha fukka.

 

"Liken it to this: driving. Do you think people should be tested and granted a license to drive, or simply go ahead and drive w/o due process? It may not be a right, but people treat it as one."

Last time I looked I didn't see driving mentioned in the constitution.

Liken it to this: The first amendment gives you the right to free speech, a free press and freedom of religion. Do you need a license to do any of these?

The right to bear arms was considered importent enough to be the 2nd
amendment, not the 10th or distant afterthought.

 

Aye, there's the problem; matee, Argh and avast.....

Those rich people trying to buy elections again.

Problem is, he has just as much right to donate his own cash to politicians of his liking as other rich guys have in donating to theirs.

Are you suggesting (gasp) that we (as a country) should somehow reduce the amount of (free speech) influence rich people can buy/donate?

 

Soros may be our version of Mellon Chaiffe (sp?). Complain all you want, he's got enough money to ensure that our current President has difficulty in the coming election. For those that disagree with Bush's policies (and I'm one) that isn't a bad thing. What Soros can do is make sure that people get the facts. Bush is accumulating a 200m fund to get his side out. I think its great that the opposition gets sufficient funds to make sure that their point of view comes across.

Art

 

Art, Soros is putting up 20x the $$ that Richard Mellon Scaiffe put up in 2000. Twenty times.

That scares me. And his version of the "facts" you mention scare me even more. Both extremes--left & right--are nasty. This guy takes it to a whole new level. He truly wants to take over the world--I am not making this up. Wish I could post more about this...

 

Lou: which is why I said it isn't a right...also kind of hard to predict a car int he constitution.

Free speech isn't a direct analogy because you don't purchase any free speech goods. I don't have to buy tongue v2.0 to use it. I was trying to think of another consumer good which people do have to buy and have licenses/permits for.

Dave: I'm very curious as to whaty ou have to say. Maybe I'll get you hammered and bring it up again. From what I understood, he was responsible for the pound, not for the asian financial crisis which is often attributed to him, nor the russian crisis.

--Dan

 

"Complain all you want, he's got enough money to ensure that our current President has difficulty in the coming election"

Don't worry, the democrats are screwing it up all by themselves. Dean wants MORE regulation and price controls. I hope he gets nominated then we'll have a result similar to the Bush vs Dukakis election in '88.

The Democrats are to fragmented and unorganized to stage any kind of opposition to Bush. Despite you're blind hatred Art, you really need to open your eyes and see that he has done some good, and many, MANY Americans like him and want him to keep on keepin' on. I'll admit, if the Dems ever get their crap together they could mount a serious challenge, but right now they look like fools.

 

He can't; he's from Eastern Europe (Hungary?)

 

More than anyone else I can think of, this guy has a serious god-complex. He grew up in Nazi controlled Hungary so he really has dealt with evil in his life. But now it seems that, after conquering the world of finance, he feels empowered to point to a scapegoat of the worlds' problems in an attempt to simplify things. Many many people don't understand Bushs' policies, so they automatically point to him. They feel that just because they don't understand him that he must be wrong.

The rise of anti-bush groups have done so because it's a huge trend, something Soros is VERY good at. If he can convince enough people that Bush is responsible for the worlds' problems, rather than the billions of collective participants in the world, he gets big time karma points from popular society if Bush loses.

Something I realized early on about the divide of left and right, is that when I try to reason my side with a leftie (I'm a moderate) they become very frustrated and stubborn. My generation (college) is especially bad about this, and I can't take them seriously anymore.

Has anyone seen Penn and Tellers mini-documentary "Bull****"? Look it up on yahoo; it supports everything I just wrote.

 

Your argument is simply assanine. If someone uses a car to run over and murder a pedestrian, would you try the car manufacturer for murder? C'mon, in law there is something called foreseeability. If the car (or gun) was used to kill someone that is not foreseeable. It was a direct result of a human's decision to act with that product.

If my car blows up while driving, or a defective pistol blows my hand off while I'm target-practicing then that should have been foreseeable because I am using those products as intended.

The oldest line on gun control will continue to be the best: WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.

 

Bobafett, gun owners will be happy to give up their guns and save thousands of lives each year that die as a result of firearms JUST AS SOON AS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE DRINKERS are willing to give up their consupmtion of beer, wine, whiskey, champagne and every other type of alcoholic brew that kills over SEVENTEEN THOUSAND people in drunk driving accidents each year as well as untold numbers of violent deaths due to bar room brawls, domestic arguments, assaults, and other violence fueled by drunken idiots.

And by the way, can somebody please tell me which constitutional amendment protects a person's right to drink alcoholic beverages?

 

The gun nuts always have a reason to resist any control. Arlie: don't we specify who can drink? don't we control who can sell alcohol? Of course. No one wants to take away people's guns. We do want to make sure that those who shouldn't have them, don't get them.

There is an interesting book, fiction, but very well researched, by a San Francisco Trial Lawyer, Richard North Patterson, the Balance of Power which deals with those issues, the gun lobby, etc. He raises an interesting point: the gun lobby says that better enforcement would stop the abuse, but what to do you with say a wife batterer who legally avoids the background check, kills the wife, then commits suicide? Not an uncommon occurrance. That issue is avoided by those who want to reject controls.

I say, no guns to crazies, and that means background checks for everyone who buys a gun, and background checks which are meaningful, i.e., there access to the National data base is assured before the gun is transfered to the person.

Art

 

Art, please allow me to modify your post: