Messing with George Soros

Status
Not open for further replies.
you know, the messing with sasquatch commercials never end well...
 
Ah, well I suggest you read about Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln if you really want to read about totalitarian thought.
Click to expand...

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
 
Didn't FDR also try to pack the Supreme Court - isn't that why we have 9 judges now?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Think of him as the new Al Capone-sans the outright violence.
Click to expand...

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
 
RPCVYemen said:
I maintain that Soros is a left wing capitalist
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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!
Click to expand...
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...
 
How the man reconciles his enormous fortune ($8.5 billion) with his communist agenda baffles me.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Sounds like a pretty accurate comparo! :D

Justin
 
And Engels made a fortune as an industrialist and capitalist.
Click to expand...

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
 
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/ju...ublications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport.pdf




.
 
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.
 
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 .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.
 
The defining nature of communism is totalitarianism...
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
I just figure that someone who survived the holocaust would have a different outlook on gun control.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
...
Click to expand...

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top