Messing with George Soros


PDA






CBS220
October 10, 2007, 06:37 PM
If you have never heard of George Soros, you have your head in the sand. He's the far-left billionaire with an agenda. You know the type- he's been there, and now he knows more than we do about everything, and he's going to use his billions to tell us what and how we're going to do things. Not that there is anything wrong with having an opinion- but there is something a little despicable about using money in place of numbers of people to get a movement going. Moveon.org is one of Soros's children, along with many, many anti-gun groups. He pretty much spearheaded the disarmament of many Aussies, and is very much in favor of letting the Blue Helmets regulate the US right to keep and bear arms, among many other relevant topics.

He also founded the Open Society Institute, which does something somewhere somehow. Their money also finds its way into anti-gun hands.

Now, proceed to www.idebate.org, an offshoot in some way or another of the OSI. Search for the debate on gun control- a "pros" and "cons" list is on the page. It actually isn't all that badly done, except that it lacks facts supporting either argument (which was intentional to remove evident bias). However, when examining the list of topics, one finds that apparently idebate has come to a consensus on the issue (With only one post in its discussion, that seems to be pro-rights). You will notice, and I am quoting from memory, that it says...

"This House moves that there is no right to bear arms.
This House moves for more gun control.
This house moves to prise the musket from Charlton Heston's cold dead hands"

Or something very close to that.

I have not yet joined the site, so I don't know how the site works. I assume- and it seems to be true- that that list (One is shown for every topic) is the "consensus" that the editor seems to feel was reached. It seems as if the editor or writer was trying to be funny, but in reality he was just being narrowminded.

It's mostly nutty things on the site, like "This house moves to make the US pay reparations", and that sort of thing- stuff of a very "let's get the government to do everything for us" nature. Not the sort of thing that any fair debate would actually reach, as everyone knows that in a fair debate you always end up with some sort of compromise.

I was thinking of how nice it might be for us to provide plenty of supporting arguments for the 2A and RKBA position- not that that is hard. There doesn't seem to be much debate, really, at all. Much of what there is looks like some form of ridiculous leetspeak. However, give it a try.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could make a Soros funded initiative actually support an actual freedom- and this one in particular?

Now, if 2A posters could have such an impact as to create a site called "People of the Gun" after a long series of posts on an anti's worthless and racist rants, we could really have some fun with this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Messing with George Soros" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ROMAK IV
October 10, 2007, 07:10 PM
Soros bankrolled the Handgun Control, (now Brady Campaign) program to sue gun manufacturers out of business. He quit funding them, after the disasterous showing in the 200 elections, after which HCI changed their name and tactics. George Soros is apparantly still a Socialist/Communist and seeks to use our political sytem to force it on us. The very fact that the Democratic party accepts his money and values, should send a chill up your spine. I also happen to believe that Al Gore has not run for president after 2000, because Soros has refused to back him financially.I can't prove it, but I have a suspicion...

Big45
October 10, 2007, 07:25 PM
Who cares what George Soros thinks?

learn2shoot
October 10, 2007, 07:48 PM
Who cares what George Soros thinks?


Know Thine Enemy

JWarren
October 10, 2007, 07:50 PM
Who cares what George Soros thinks?

We shouldn't care what he thinks, but we need to pay attention to what he is DOING.

As with any political campaign, money is the first tool to getting a message out. Getting a message out is the first tool to telling people what to thing. Telling people what to think is the first step to gaining momentium towards legislation.

And so far, Soros has the money to do all of the above. And he has an agenda for the US. In my opinion, he is one of the most dangerous men alive in terms of the freedoms of America.


-- John

Big45
October 10, 2007, 07:55 PM
We shouldn't care what he thinks, but we need to pay attention to what he is DOING.

Taking ROMAK's word for it,

Soros bankrolled the Handgun Control, (now Brady Campaign) program to sue gun manufacturers out of business. He quit funding them

what else is he doing?

ReadyontheRight
October 10, 2007, 08:09 PM
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=151

George Soros: Anti-Gunner Who Would Remake America

George Soros has made an immense fortune manipulating international stock and currency markets. Over the past few years the Hungarian-born billionaire has used that fortune to become a preeminent funding source for global gun control. Directly and through his organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funneled cash to various anti-gun groups, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee--Campaign for a Progressive Future--and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported UN efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists.

Soros has worked to combine with other wealthy activists and foundations to provide funding for numerous anti-gun projects. Soros and the Irene Diamond Foundation made equal $5 million contributions to form the Funders` Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention. This organization has provided funding to the anti-gun Harvard Injury Control Center and has helped bankroll reckless lawsuits designed to cripple the firearms industry. OSI and the Funders` Collaborative (using money largely supplied by Soros) was the primary funding source for the plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-tek and in NAACP v. ACUSPORT Inc. OSI provided $300,000 to the plaintiffs` lawyers in the Hamilton case and provided a grant identified as between $100,000 and $499,000 in the NAACP case.

When Soros and OSI decided to start spending great sums of money on anti-gun research and advocacy, they went in search of an experienced activist to guide the effort. Soros came up with Rebecca Peters, a central figure in disarming the people of Australia, and a leader in the effort to ban all handguns and most long guns. Under Peters` direction, OSI soon released "Gun Control in The United States." This strikingly simplistic evaluation of gun laws in the 50 states purposefully ignored federal firearms laws and arbitrarily awarded various point values to each state that has imposed gun control restrictions favored by the group.

Such restrictions include, for example, compact handgun prohibitions, gun registration and gun owner licensing, various gun sale regulations and gun storage requirements. States that do not allow local jurisdictions to impose gun laws more restrictive than state law are penalized in the Society`s point system. States that prohibit the filing of junk lawsuits against the firearm industry are also penalized, as are states that do not duplicate the federal age requirement for possessing a handgun.

Out of a maximum of 100 points possible in OSI`s point system, only seven states received scores above 30%. The other 43 states, OSI claims, "lack even `basic gun control laws` [and therefore] fall below minimum standards for public safety." Twenty-three of the supposedly sub-standard states got scores of zero or below. You would never know this is a country with more than 20,000 gun laws.

The plain truth, of course, is that the "particular regulatory measures" we know as "gun control" are absolute failures in the war on crime. Case in point: the average violent crime rate of the seven states whose gun laws OSI believes best is 21% higher than the average rate for the 43 states OSI believes are "below minimum standards for public safety." Of the 10 states that have the lowest violent crime rates in America, eight received scores of zero or below, and the Society`s favorite state, Massachusetts, has a violent crime rate five times higher than its least favorite state, Maine.

In addition to his efforts to undermine the Second Amendment rights of Americans, Soros has spent over two decades trying to influence the political and social development in various parts of the world, particularly the nations of the former Soviet bloc. In the United States, Soros has given many millions of dollars to finance pro-marijuana initiative campaigns. He has been called "the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization," by former Democratic Cabinet Member Joseph Califano.

Soros is now using his fortune to not only to unseat President George Bush, but also to challenge the United States` role in the world. The aging billionaire has decided to use his fortune to remake America as he thinks it should be. And he is spending loads of cash to do it. Soros has obscenely likened President Bush to Hitler and his administration to Nazi Germany and has described the United States as "a danger to the world." To promote such slanders, he has committed $5 million to the strongly anti-Bush group MoveOn, and has promised $10 million to a new liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT). These groups are focused not only on defeating George Bush in 2004, but on achieving vast social change in America which would include the dismantling of Second Amendment rights. He has declared that he intends to raise and spend $75 million dollars to oust Bush and force a "regime change" in America.

Soros is intent on making American sovereignty subject to international will. He calls America`s actions to protect its citizens from terrorism as "supremacist." In its place he would have the U.S. adopt the "Soros doctrine." Under the Soros doctrine, U.S. interests would be replaced by international "collective action." His support for international gun bans fits hand in glove with his vision of an America subservient to an international collective will.

With his vast fortune to bankroll his activities, it is clear that Soros wants not only to be the king-maker, but to set American policies to his liking in a nation remade to suit his extremist vision.

Soros` decision to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence the 2004 election flies in the face of his earlier crusades against the use of "soft" money in political campaigns. Over the past seven years, Soros has donated close to $7 million dollars to efforts to reform campaign finance laws. Now he is spending tens of millions in "soft" money political ads to influence the 2004 election. This hypocrisy has drawn the condemnation not only of political foes, but of former ally Fred Werthiemer, the former Common Cause director, who now says "we`ll be watch-dogging him closely."

Soros sees the defeat of George Bush as "a matter of life and death," and is as dedicated to that goal as he has been to eliminating our Second Amendment rights. He has already spent $15.5 million in this new quest and has stated "If necessary, I would give more money."


Posted: 11/19/2003 12:00:00 AM

Knotthead
October 10, 2007, 08:09 PM
A quick look at the website you presented doesn't give me a very clear idea of how it works, but if you check the debate on self defense under the heading of "Individual rights", you will find the following findings:

This House would shoot first and ask questions later
This House supports the right to protect private property
This House believes in a right to self-defence
This House believes that criminals have forfeited their rights
This House must be protected

These findings don't seem to mesh with the ones you found on gun control. Additionally, the debates on assault weapons and background checks seem to be incomplete at this point. Perhaps some of the more eloquent members here would like to lend a hand.

hankdatank1362
October 10, 2007, 09:32 PM
This House must be protected

Reminds me of the Under Armor commercial.


We must protect THIS HOUSE!!!!!!

Erebus
October 10, 2007, 11:21 PM
what else is he doing? I believe he is now support the VPC(Violence Policy Center).

MikeG
October 10, 2007, 11:52 PM
Is it just me or would Soros make a good James Bond villain? :rolleyes:

Diamondback6
October 11, 2007, 12:04 AM
I actually saw him compared to Auric Goldfinger somewhere, and Goldfinger was the better man of the two...:eek:

So, what can we do to mess with his head?:D

30 cal slob
October 11, 2007, 07:47 AM
Soros' The Alchemy of Finance darn near put me into a coma. :banghead:

How the man reconciles his enormous fortune ($8.5 billion) with his communist agenda baffles me.

Folks, he's only one man, albeit with a ton of money to throw around.

Pro-gun voices and pro-gun votes are the best antidote.

jlpskydive
October 11, 2007, 07:58 AM
He spent 75 mill to beat Bush in 04 and we see how well that went for him.

Steelharp
October 11, 2007, 09:29 AM
How old is he? I mean, how long do we maybe have to wait for nature to just take care of this dirtbag?

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 09:32 AM
George Soros has made an immense fortune manipulating international stock and currency markets.

"Manipulating"? I guess he's a criminal for investing wisely. I guess some folks object to the free market. We ought to have a law against making money by investing! Those profits belong to the people!

He applied some theoretical work from Popper (falsification as they key element of scientific inquiry) to stock market prices, and he was right more often than most folks.

I am trying to find some way to avoid suggesting that anyone that suggests that Soros is communist might be struggling with an intelligence deficit - but it's hard. Come on folks, the man is a poster child for capitalism. He survived the Holocaust, went to England to escape the Soviets.

Let me speak slowly, "The Soviets were communists. Communists do not believe in capital. George Soros invested capital - and made more capital. The economic system that allows him to do hat is called capitalism - see how capital is the first part of capitalism?"

He is wrong abut gun control. He may be a wacko, and he may be left wing. He could be the son of Lucifer for all I know - but they one thing that is 100% absolutely clear is that the man is a full bore captialist!

Mike

Vitamin G
October 11, 2007, 09:34 AM
If i was that old and had 8.5 billion, i'd donate a heck of a lot more than 75million.

I mean, come on. Even if you are a total lunatic and just throw the 8.5 billion in a standard savings account, you can spend .5billion (500 million) every four years, and it will last you 17 elections. That man doesn't have 17 years left, much less 68 (17 elections, one election every 4 years).

You can live quite comfortably on the 1.9% interests from 8.5 billion sitting in the bank.





What a tightwad!

RLsnow
October 11, 2007, 09:39 AM
does he have kids willing to further his legacy?

Ash
October 11, 2007, 09:47 AM
The super-rich are so detached from reality they always go left. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Soros, you name them. By the time you have that much money, money is nothing. You then want power, which is what Soros wants But, I find it hypocritical that these three (and there are many more, especially in Hollywood) would make so much money on capitalism then turn around to condemn its nature as all three are more or less socialistic in their leanings (okay, so Buffet is just liberal).

Ash

30 cal slob
October 11, 2007, 09:55 AM
I am trying to find some way to avoid suggesting that anyone that suggests that Soros is communist might be struggling with an intelligence deficit - but it's hard.

Okay, I guess I have an intelligence deficit. Thanks for pointing it out. Duhhh...

Soros abhorred totalitarian regimes embodied by Soviet-bloc era communism.

However, if you read his writings carefully, you will see that he argues passionately against extreme individualism embodied by capitalism (and gun ownership).

Other components of his worldview are consistent with hardline socialism.

So, "communism" does stick, in the classical sense.

Again, I point out in my previous post, it's a wonder to me how he reconciles his fortune with his socialist/progressive worldview.

AirForceShooter
October 11, 2007, 10:12 AM
Somebody get the man a white cat.
A real fluffy one.

AFS

ozwyn
October 11, 2007, 10:30 AM
funny, if I had 8+ billion, I'd buy myself a country (I understand the kingdom of sealand is both for sale and recognized by the EU as a independant nation, was going for a fairly small price tag too. Definitely a fixer-upper so buying some small islands for sale nearby might be handy) and make my own rules without telling 300+ million people how to live unless they choose to move in to my mad little island nation.

but I'm silly that way I suppose....

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 10:35 AM
Okay, I guess I have an intelligence deficit. Thanks for pointing it out.

I apologize for that remark, it was extreme.

So, "communism" does stick, in the classical sense.

Forget all that pesky stuff about the abolition of capital and private property - you really want to use the word. In which version of the the "classic sense" of communism are individuals permitted to accrete large amounts of capital? Give me a quote from Marx/Engels, etc. and I will believe you.

I will assert that there is no classic sense of communism that encompasses capitalism - it's just not possible. Communism is a (failed, in my opinion) social/economic system intended to end capitalism!

I maintain that Soros is a left wing capitalist - and in fact he is wrong about gun control. I also happen to think that he was right about the Bush/Cheney flirtation with totalitarianism - the "Patriot Act" is one of the most totalitarian pieces of legislation in my time. But whatever you maintain about Soros, he is a capitalist success story.

Mike

Mike

Sheldon J
October 11, 2007, 10:43 AM
Sooo.... How heavily armed do you think his body guards are???

Ash
October 11, 2007, 10:46 AM
Ah, well I suggest you read about Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln if you really want to read about totalitarian thought. Perhaps you did not realize it, but Roosevelt's administration tried to nationalize all forest management. That's right, they attempted to make all forests under US control, regardless of private ownership. All these Tree Farm signs you see about are the direct result of private land ownership preventing that attempt. And, lest we forget, Roosevelt interned thousands of US citizens, denied them their rights and put them in prison camps, during WWII.

Did you know Lincoln has newspaper men jailed or deported? He also had a member of congress deported to the South.

The Patriot Act is NOTHING compared to that which has been done in the past.

You probably need to study more on totalitarianism before you accuse Bush of being in that vein. I mean no offense, but that is really quite a stretch, especially in the historical sense.

taliv
October 11, 2007, 10:48 AM
you know, the messing with sasquatch commercials never end well...

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 11:18 AM
Ah, well I suggest you read about Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln if you really want to read about totalitarian thought.

That's why I added "in my lifetime". Both Lincoln and Roosevelt were well before my lifetime. :)

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus as I recall. He threw opposing members of the Maryland legislature in jail, and asked the Supreme Court where there army was when they objected (at least that's a vague memory).

I don't know much about FDR - IO have read a fair amount of American history up until the end of the 19th century, but I don't know much after that. Didn't FDR also try to pack the Supreme Court - isn't that why we have 9 judges now?

It does tickle me to see people with quotes from Jefferson in their tag lines. It tells me that they have never read history. :) Jefferson not only thought that he had the right to seize private property without court proceedings of any type, he thought he had the right to throw you in jail if he thought you thought about violating his unpopular boycott. Do any of the folks who quote him even understand him?

So I would agree that the Patriot Act is not the most totalitarian act in US history. But Soros was right about Bush/Cheney and totalitarianism. Cheney worked pretty darn hard to make sure that Hilary, et. al, can get records of anything you have purchased or even read. When Cheney hands the anti's that power, what do you think they will do with it?

Mike

Tommygunn
October 11, 2007, 11:26 AM
Didn't FDR also try to pack the Supreme Court - isn't that why we have 9 judges now?

He threatened to after They declared the NRA (National Industrial Recovery Act, not the NRA we know and love) unconstitutional. The Supremes became a little more ... "pliant" after that and he never actually added more justices. We have always had 9 justices there.

FieroCDSP
October 11, 2007, 11:27 AM
THe reason Soros only donates $75 million or so is because the rest is under the table, and extremely well hidden. I wouldn't bet against him tossing around $150million a year, just for anti-gun causes. Not to mention the massive amounts he funnels into his bastard children:the numerous liberal groups and whatever they may be touting on a particular day. Assume his true donation numbers are twice what he reports to the IRS. That's a lot of cash being tossed around. Think of him as the new Al Capone-sans the outright violence. We could only hope his bookkeeper gets ticked and squeals to the feds.

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 11:56 AM
Think of him as the new Al Capone-sans the outright violence.

Do you have credible evidence of him breaking the law with any violence at all? He was convicted of insider trading in France, but that's hardly enough to make him Al Capone.

Evil

30 cal slob
October 11, 2007, 12:11 PM
I maintain that Soros is a left wing capitalist

And I hardly disagree with you on that count. That is the irony of George Soros.

He ACTS like a capitalist but

ESPOUSES socialism.

How he reconciles the two in a manner that makes sense to me is a mystery.

Either that, or he is a hypocrite.

Ash
October 11, 2007, 12:28 PM
He is a hypocrite. You see, he has his money already. He is vying for power, seeking to be the power behind the scenes.

Ash

SaxonPig
October 11, 2007, 12:31 PM
I was skewered by a moderator for posting a political message in my signature. He said no politics were allowed on the forum. Are political discussions now allowed?

whited
October 11, 2007, 12:38 PM
Somebody get the man a white cat.
A real fluffy one.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

:evil:

Are political discussions now allowed?

Depends on the moderator's mood.

AntiqueCollector
October 11, 2007, 12:43 PM
He is wrong abut gun control. He may be a wacko, and he may be left wing. He could be the son of Lucifer for all I know - but they one thing that is 100% absolutely clear is that the man is a full bore captialist!
And Engels made a fortune as an industrialist and capitalist. yet co-authored the communist manifesto and used his money to support Karl Marx/etc. Communists often don't mind using capitalism to get money/etc. to support their causes. Hypocrisy yes but there's a long history of communists using capitalism to make money...

Standing Wolf
October 11, 2007, 01:16 PM
Soros was a wild-eyed Esperanto enthusiast in his youth.

rdhood
October 11, 2007, 01:21 PM
How the man reconciles his enormous fortune ($8.5 billion) with his communist agenda baffles me.

Once you have money, there is the issue of making sure that you and yours keep that money for the next 500 years... even as people, governments, and countries come and go. One way to do that is to make sure that nobody else can join your club and exert their own influence. Socialism and gun control provide stability and ensure that no one can ever join your club.

I have always noted that the very wealthy ( actors, billionaires, etc) are always extolling the virtues of socialism while never giving away their own money. It is easy to be generous with other people's money.

Roccobro
October 11, 2007, 01:57 PM
Do you have credible evidence of him breaking the law with any violence at all? He was convicted of insider trading in France, but that's hardly enough to make him Al Capone.


Did they ever convict Capone on a violent charge? I thought it was only tax evasion...

Sounds like a pretty accurate comparo! :D

Justin

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 02:04 PM
And Engels made a fortune as an industrialist and capitalist.

I thought that it was the father that made the money, and Engels worked for his father's office to support Marx.

I don't think that's it's at all unusual for the children of the wealthy to adopt radical political ideas and expend the parents' wealth in pursuit of radical ideals. I think Che Guevera was from a wealthy family. My kids don't agree with me about everything, either. :)

But I still don't find any aspect of "classic communism" that endorses the acquisition of the kind of capital that Soros has acquired. He looks to me like a very wealthy man with slightly left of center politics who's extremely suspicious of totalitarian governments.

Mike

30 cal slob
October 11, 2007, 03:07 PM
Getting back on topic ...

Perhaps this is old news, but I ran across this little snippet from George Soros' Open Society Institute on gun control in the U.S. Note that it is fairly old (ca. 2000).

It's a pdf file. Haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly, but thought it would be of interest.

a little snippet from page 14 under heading "Recommendations:"

"Pre-1986 machine guns and pre-1994 assault weapons should be banned from private purchase."

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf




.

skinewmexico
October 11, 2007, 06:50 PM
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

ROMAK IV
October 11, 2007, 08:11 PM
The defining nature of communism is totalitarianism, not sovcialism. Leftist capitalists seek for the government to take over their competition. All the rich leftists are comparitively hypocritical in that respect. On the other hand, socialism doesn't have to be bad, if people happen to chose it, but almost invaribly, it is forced upon them is some way. In the United States, socialists use trickery, judicial fiats, and major crisises, to force their socialism. Social Security is an obvious example. At one time it was a percent of a single percent of income, and instituted during a crisis. Gradually, it has become a socialist institution, an entitlement, a welfare system, and about 15% of your income. I think a more precise term for Soros would be Stateist, or internationalist. However good intentioned, yed Marx and Engels had good intentions, Socialism is antifreedom and not viable. In that respect, i.e. Soros promoting socialism and Stateism, and using his fortune selectivcely to establish a World toalitarian Authoriy, no matter how well intentioned, IS a form of communism, and certainly a purer form than the Soviet Union.

Waitone
October 11, 2007, 08:43 PM
Soros is a man with whom one should not triffle. He is the money bags behind Campaign Finance Control. He pioneered the 527's that seem to inflict the body politic. His play with Campaign Finance Control and creation of 527's has allowed him to gain control over the democrat party.

An article with just snippets of his actions
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12146

Organizations funded directly by Soros or Open Society
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/orgsfundeddirectly%20.html

Soros' Creation "Shadow Government"
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6706

A financial piece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/229012.stm

Known as the Man Who Broke the Bank of UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2002/09/13/cnwed113.xml

Fear of Soros' "Velvet Revolution" in Russia, Ukraine, and Iran
http://www.poe.com/?page_id=55

And the list goes on. Soros not only has lots of money, he also tends toward being mentally unbalanced making statements which call into question his ordinary firmness.

The man is dangerous. He has evidently set his sights on gaining control of governments using his money. What makes him so dangerous is his evident success in gaining control over elements of the democrat party. Hillary, if she makes it to the big chair, will owe Soros big time.

The man is dangerous and should not be dismissed.

Waitone
October 11, 2007, 08:46 PM
Double tap

RoadkingLarry
October 11, 2007, 09:14 PM
^ Is that a strategy recommendation for dealing with Soros
Kind of like high velocity trepanning...Just kidding:)

RPCVYemen
October 11, 2007, 10:44 PM
The defining nature of communism is totalitarianism...

I agree - the man has a solid record of opposition to totalitarianism.

One of he articles cited in another post suggests that Soros is a dangrous because he helped finance the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. For those of you that are geography/history impaired - that was the peaceful revolution that over the communist government in Czechoslovakia.

The same article suggests that Iran, Russia and the Ukraine fear his support for "velvet revolutions" in their countries. That really makes me mad, 'cause I am a strong supporter of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Iran. It makes me madder than heck that anyone questions the current government of Iran. How about you?

The man is wrong about gun control. Making him a power demon of change is just silly.

Mike

Leitmotif
October 12, 2007, 04:40 AM
Open Society doesn't just make trouble in the US. They funded the creation of South Africa's disarmament law, the Firearms Control Act of 2000. Also funds Gun Free SA, the Institute for Security Studies and Gun Control Alliance... all of which have pretty much the same staff. Funding goes through NGOs set up for the purpose. They're decent at obfuscation.

Mot45acp
October 12, 2007, 10:43 AM
I just figure that someone who survived the holocaust would have a different outlook on gun control.

AntiqueCollector
October 12, 2007, 12:50 PM
It does tickle me to see people with quotes from Jefferson in their tag lines. It tells me that they have never read history. Jefferson not only thought that he had the right to seize private property without court proceedings of any type, he thought he had the right to throw you in jail if he thought you thought about violating his unpopular boycott.

Not to get off topic too much, but what seizing of private property are you referring to? Jefferson was required by the Constitution to enforce laws, including the embargo act. The purpose of the Embargo Act was to try to avoid war with Britain or France.

RPCVYemen
October 12, 2007, 01:14 PM
Not to get off topic too much, but what seizing of private property are you referring to? Jefferson was required by the Constitution to enforce laws, including the embargo act.

He was not required by the constitution to submit a proposal to Congress to seize private property without warrant.

Embargo Act of 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_Act_of_1807)

On March 30, 1808 Jefferson submitted to Congress a proposal for yet another law regarding the American embargo. This act was to be known simply, and unofficially, as "The Enforcement Act".
...
Signed into law on 24 April, this was to be the last of the many embargo act to become law during Jefferson's presidency. The "Enforcement Law" decreed:
...
That port authorities were allowed to seize cargoes without a warrant, and/or to bring to trial any shipper or merchant who was thought to have merely contemplated violating the embargo.
...


I agree that Congress should have rejected the proposal - but it's pretty clear that Jefferson the President was no fan of the Bill of Rights. That's why I laugh when people quote him. :)

Mike

AntiqueCollector
October 12, 2007, 02:22 PM
True, that bill was a mistake (warrants should have been required in any situation) though well intentioned (it didn't look like we could win a war with either France or the British at the time, and if we traded with either, the other got mad and made threats...), but it did pass Congress, so it wasn't as though he was making himself a dictator like some 20th century presidents tried to (cough cough "FDR"). Overall I think Jefferson did rather well as president (and beforehand too), I certainly doubt he'd support any of the current restrictions on weapons...I don't think any of even our early presidents had a perfect record on everything.

Cosmoline
October 12, 2007, 02:35 PM
I guess he's a criminal for investing wisely. I guess some folks object to the free market. We ought to have a law against making money by investing! Those profits belong to the people!

In this case, the term "manipulating" fits. He made his fortune not by investing in equity and helping to build companies, but by manipulating and making money by money changing. That market is notoriously unregulated, and is a far cry from legitimate investment. He's a currency pirate. He hasn't built anything and hasn't made anything. Apart from billions off of the misfortunes of various nations. There are plenty of places he's not safe visiting because of the people who's investments he ruined. Many, many people would love to see him dead and for reasons that have nothing to do with his stance on the RKBA.

As far as his politics, there's no doubt he's one of our primary foes and always will be. He wants to disarm the US and make us more pliant.

RPCVYemen
October 12, 2007, 05:21 PM
Overall I think Jefferson did rather well as president (and beforehand too), I certainly doubt he'd support any of the current restrictions on weapons...I don't think any of even our early presidents had a perfect record on everything.

If he was willing to throw people in jail because he thought they might be thinking of breaking a law - is there any reason he wouldn't take gun from those same people? When he was seizing property, do you think he carefully separated the weapons from the rest of the property and handed it back to the rightful owners?

When I read the history of the Embargo, it looks to me like he was prepared to do whatever is necessary to enforce an unpopular embargo on the people against their will - rights to due process, search and seizure, etc. be damned!

Mike

RoadkingLarry
October 12, 2007, 05:25 PM
**sniff sniff**
I smell politics!

ROMAK IV
October 12, 2007, 08:38 PM
I agree - the man has a solid record of opposition to totalitarianism.

One of he articles cited in another post suggests that Soros is a dangrous because he helped finance the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. For those of you that are geography/history impaired - that was the peaceful revolution that over the communist government in Czechoslovakia.

The same article suggests that Iran, Russia and the Ukraine fear his support for "velvet revolutions" in their countries. That really makes me mad, 'cause I am a strong supporter of the governments of Russia, Ukraine, and Iran. It makes me madder than heck that anyone questions the current government of Iran. How about you?

The man is wrong about gun control. Making him a power demon of change is just silly.


When an individual is undermining the soveriegnty of a nation, in this case the US, in favor of an international sovereignty, it is still Stateism or totalitarianism, just on an international scale. That is precisely what Soros is doing thrugh his grand financial contributions to numerous NGO's, not just the ones concerned with global gun control. I'm not calling Soros a communist, in the popular sense, but it would be a valid label. Portraying Soros as some kind of folk hero, while presenting Jefferson as an evil dictator, is soewhat rewriting history. There isn't a single person in the universe that has done every single thing correctly and 100% according to even their personal values. Like most leftists, they praise democracy but always undermine it when the populace doesn't happen to agree with them. Ultimately, it isn't democracy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Messing with George Soros" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!